House of Representatives
9 April 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1355

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray.

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair, Mr Bourchier, Mr Drury, Mr Erwin, Mr Fisher, Mr Lusher, Mr Oldmeadow and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That marriage is an exclusive lifelong partnership between one woman and one man, which should not be dissolved at the will of one party after 12 months notice nor without a reasonable attempt at reconciliation and

That a husband should normally be responsible for maintaining his wife and children within marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill1974 be amended

  1. 1 ) To require a reasonable attempt at reconciliation with the aid counselling at least twelve months prior to the application for a divorce;
  2. To specify three objectives tests for irretrievable breakdown, namely: (a) intolerable behaviour, (b) desertion for at least 2 years, (c) separation for at least 3 years;

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Morrison and Mr Hurford.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the present matrimonial laws are archaic, unrealistic and cruel and the cause of so much distress, bitterness and injustice as to make their continued operation intolerable to the vast majority of fair minded citizens of Australia and that the Family Law Bill at present before Parliament should be passed without delay.
  2. That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage determined by a maximum of twelve months’ separation, embodied in the Family Law Bill already passed in the Senate, be the sole ground for divorce.
  3. That there is widespread dissatisfaction with the enormous discretionary powers given Judges in the present legislation and that the non fault maintenance concept (according to need) based on specific criteria, as enunciated in Clause 54 (2) of the Family Law Bill 1974 No. 2, should be tried and we humbly pray Members of the House will restore this concept fully by deleting Clause 75(B) from the new Bill “as read a third time”.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage and Mr James.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that-

  1. 1 ) under the provisions of the Family Law Bill divorce will be easier and the permanency of marriage may be impaired, therefore

  2. the Bill ought to be amended to-

    1. provide for adequate pre-marital counselling, and
    2. raise the minimum age for marriage without parental consent.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will amend the Family Law Bill in accordance with the above provisions.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Oldmeadow.

Petition received.

Hansard: Subscription Rate

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard subscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrDrury.

Petition received.

Hansard: Subscription Rate

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That thereis a continuing need for the people of Australia to be informed of the activities and debates of the Parliament;

That the Parliamentary Debates, with their records of the views of Honourable members and senators and of the activities of Government as revealed through Ministerial statements and answers to questions, has been a key means of reliably informing those who wish to know of such matters; and

That the increase in the price of Parliamentary Debates to $63. 10 per annum imposes an effective financial deterrent to many persons who may wish to inform themselves about public affairs.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the previous nominal price structure for the ‘Parliamentary Debates’ be restored.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrStaley.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the persons themselves de-register their own marriage with the Family Law Bill used for enforcement only with guidelines provided by Mediators not lawyers, and that it be noted that Queensland had Divorce by Mutual Consent prior to 1959.
  2. That women should be given the same respect and equality as men by recognising the repugnance to decent women of being regarded as a parasite and second rate citizen, classed with lunatics, criminals, aborigines, paraplegics and being responsible for lowering the concept of marriage to the status of prostitution in making claims for personal financial support and by deleting Clause 75 (n) of the New Law Bill.
  3. That in any dispute regarding custody of children that immediately and automaucally the children become wards of the Court and their care given to the Children’s Welfare Department
  4. That Matrimonial Property be equally divided with property one owns prior to marriage or inherited during marriage belongs to that person.
  5. That financial support be available from the Department based on need without Court Order.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned elector of the Division of Holt respectfully showeth-

That the imposed metric system is an unnecessary nuisance imposed at great unnecessary cost to the Australian People.

Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that the excellent Imperial system of measurement be restored to full public use in Australia.

And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Oldmeadow.

Petition received.

Hobart City Council: RED Scheme Grant

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents and land owners of the area of Ridgeway Hobart, Tasmania respectfully showeth whereas: -

  1. Ridgeway was one of the early settled areas of the City of Hobart and is situated in close proximity to one of the Cities sources of water supply.
  2. That we have suffered bush fires and a lower standard of living due to no reticulated water supply being available.
  3. Inflationary increases in estimated costs of servicing our allotments with a reticulated supply.
  4. Stagnation of our land due to only rain water being available.

Your Petitioners request that your Honourable Parliament takes immediate action to:-

Make available to the Hobart City Council a Special Grant under the “RED” Scheme for urgent labour intensive works such as the laying of a water main to Ridgeway.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sherry.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82 J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrStaley.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Family Law Bill 1974 would be an unjust law if passed since the innocent party could be divorced against his or her will after a year’s separation.

That the Bill does not only facilitate divorces but changes the nature of marriage and the husband-wife relationship. Legislation ought to reflect public opinion, not attempt to condition it. Gallup polls indicate 75 per cent of Australians are opposed to the concepts of the Family Law Bill. Therefore Parliament has no mandate from the people to ask such a far reaching change in the nature of our society.

That children need a stable emotional and psychological environment in which to grow up. This stability is upset by divorce. A high proportion of criminals come from broken homes. Consequently any law which makes divorce easier is harmful to society.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament so vote as to defeat the Family Law Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrStaley.

Petition received.

page 1357

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1357

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In reply to his statement yesterday I invited him to table his cables to Saigon and Hanoi in order to clear up suggestions that Australia had adopted double standards to avoid offending communist North Vietnam. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to table the exchanges, will he reconsider my offer to study them privately so that we can clear up this matter? I guaranteed yesterday, and I repeat now, that I would preserve the confidentiality of the exchanges if they were made available to me and that the only comment I would make on them would be to say that they were the same in quality or that they differed in quality.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Of course I have noticed suggestions that there was some difference in the tone of the communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon. The honourable gentleman and the honourable member for Kooyong, his spokesman on foreign affairs, invited me to table the cables. That, of course, would be a complete breach of the normal procedures.

Mr McMahon:

– That is not true, and you know it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WHITLAM:

-Mr Speaker, I show very great tolerance towards the Liberal leader before the last one. His habit is always to interject: ‘It is not true ‘. The fact is that it is true.

Mr McMahon:

– It is not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable member for Lowe will remain silent.

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The right honourable gentleman did not release documents; he leaked them. It is a complete departure from the normal procedure in relation to communications between nations for cables or the notes of oral representations to be released. It is very easy to make suggestions or allegations and then to ask that they be refuted. Am I to show our cables to members of the Opposition every time they fabricate one of these allegations or suggestions? Are we to release any document from any department whenever a member of the Opposition has a brainstorm? Am I to allow the Leader of the Opposition to arbitrate in any matter of dissension between me and the next Liberal aspirant? There is no truth whatever in the allegations that the honourable member for Kooyong has made. He has even purported to quote from a cable. The quotation which he purports to make is inaccurate.

Mr Peacock:

– I did not quote.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The honourable member for Kooyong interjects. In some of the newspapers there are statements from him in quotation marks.

Mr Peacock:

– Words to the effect.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Well, they are in quotation marks.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to honourable members that one member ask a question and one Minister answer that question and that other members remain silent until they get the call to ask a question.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon were substantially the same. There was one matter obviously which I mentioned to Saigon which I did not mention to Hanoi. That concerned the National Council for Reconciliation and Concord. It concerned Saigon alone. There was a matter which I mentioned to Hanoi but not to Saigon, namely, links with the Provisional Revolutionary Government. That concerned Hanoi and not Saigon. If challenges are to be made, let the honourable member for Kooyong release the telegram which he saw in Saigon, or part of which he saw, and then I will release the other. It would be a breach of proper practice in each case. It is very easy as people know to challenge a Minister to release a document which should be confidential by making some allegation. Challenges are made constantly to the Minister for Health or the Treasurer to release something which is in the health records or the taxation records. To do so would not be proper. I do not propose lightly to depart from this practice. There is no truth in the allegation. Presumably the honourable member for Kooyong was somewhat surprised at the sharp tone of the note to Saigon. He would be gratified by the equally sharp tone of the note to Hanoi.

page 1358

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. What exploration conditions are being imposed by the Designated Authority of Western Australia in respect of the current renewal of off-shore exploration permits? What action is being taken to deal with the situation?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The position at present is completely unsatisfactory. Contrary to the very carefully disseminated propaganda of certain oil exploration interests there is in fact a remarkable similarity in the number of oil exploration wells which have been drilled off-shore in recent years. A total of 3 1 exploration wells was drilled in the calendar year 1974. In 1973 there were 3 1 wells, in 1972 there were 38, in 1971 there were 20, in 1970 there were 27 and in 1969 there were 32. But those wells were drilled under a former economic situation which no longer exists. Australia today has a heavy bill for imported crude. The bill for the year which will end on 30 June will be at least $650m. We want to see something better than is being proposed and imposed by the Designated Authority, particularly in respect of Western Australia. The major exploration permits are about to expire in that State. In certain cases the Designated Authority has permitted renewals on obligations in respect of exploration which are completely unsatisfactory and bear no relevance to the needs of Australia.

Exploration was carried on in Western Australia from 1965 under remarkably generous terms. Until 1 972 half the cost of off-shore exploration came from State and Federal government subsidies or from taxation concessions. At the present time we need an intensive drilling pattern. For the 6 years which have just ended, the total cost of exploration under the major exploration permits was of the order of $83m. The Premier of Western Australia is sounding off and is talking in terms of an exploration expenditure of $250m or $300m being required. In point of fact, on present indications the exploration conditions which have been imposed by the Designated Authority of Western Australia would roughly parallel those of the former 6 years. In other words, for the next 6 years we might expect an exploration expenditure of $ 15m to $20m a year. I suggest that it is up to the Premier of Western Australia in particular to ask the oil companies which are drilling off-shore to put their money where his mouth is and to get busy.

We hear a lot of talk also regarding the need for foreign companies to come into Australian exploration. There are 78 permits for exploration off-shore round the whole coastline of Australia and no fewer than 70 of these are being operated by companies which are wholly or predominantly foreign-owned. Their performances have been unsatisfactory. Now that the exploration permits are expiring we want to see an intensive drilling pattern proposed. We intend to achieve it. Today my officers are in Perth discussing the whole situation with the representatives of the Designated Authority for Western Australia.

page 1358

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In its short term bid to stave off the consequences of its economic mismanagement for how long does the Government propose to resort to the printing press and to pump money into the economy at the present rate, leading to a deficit of $3.3 billion in 9 months? Does the Treasurer realise that such deficits are economically irresponsible and will inevitably lead to hyperinflation? Does he propose to contain deficits of this dimension by cuts in expenditure or by increased taxation?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I suppose the Opposition shadow Treasurer would show no concern at all for unemployment or the undercapacity in the economy and for the necessity for a very substantial deficit to increase the level of employment and of output. I should imagine that what he is telling the country is that he would do nothing positive to reduce unemployment and to get the economy going. The deficit today is the most substantial instrument that can be used by the Government for the purpose of increasing employment and output. The honourable gentleman relates the deficit to inflation. When as at present we have an undercapacity of 10 or 12 per cent in the economy, the deficit is not inflationary. The deficit is aimed directly at the economy to increase production, to get the economy going and to employ resources.

Wherever there are resources available for employment the Labor Government will never see those resources remain unemployed because of a shortage of money. That battle was fought in this country 50 years ago, and we are not going to fight it again. The deficit at the present time is substantially one that is directed at the private sector of the economy. Apparently the honourable gentlemen opposite are quite unaware of this. I shall just give a few figures to indicate the position. The increase in the deficit above the Budget estimate includes $354m for assistance to industry and development- that is $3 54m directed straight into the private sector- and $224m increased spending in housing. It is quite wrong to imagine that the deficit is simply public spending. Two-thirds of the increased deficit is spending in the private sector directed at the employment of resources which are available for employment.

The present figure of the deficit is about $3,300m. However, the ultimate deficit is estimated to be about $2,300m. Of that $2,300m the external deficit will be about $600m which means that the internal deficit will be considerably less than $2,000m. Probably it will end up at $ 1,700m or $ 1,800m. The deficit has been caused by an expansion in the expenditure upon resources and substantially, as I pointed out, in the private sector so that unemployment will be taken up, so that excess capacity will be used, so that goods and services will be produced and so that assets will be created. The use of the deficit in circumstances like this when there is unemployment is the most positive action that the Government can take to increase production and to offset inflationary factors. As long as this condition persists the Government will use the deficit positively in the way I have outlined.

page 1359

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr CLAYTON:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Social Security inform the House how pensioner medical services will be affected by the introduction of Medibank? What provision will be made for the fringe benefits pensioners currently receive on their pensioner medical cards?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Under Medibank pensioners will have access to the full range of medical services, a privilege of which they are deprived at the present time. Under the existing pensioner medical service pensioners may receive cover only for consultations with a general practitionerfor procedural services from a general practitioner. For any of the range of medical services provided by a specialist pensioners are not covered. They either have to take out private insurance at considerable cost to themselvesmany find themselves forced to do this- or else, they have to go to a public hospital and seek those services there. I repeat that under Medibank they are covered for the full range of medical services from a general practitioner or specialist in private practice- medical practitioners of their own choice. So far as fringe benefits in other areas are concerned, these will continue to be provided although the honourable member will remember that in the last Budget everyone received the fringe benefit, if I can put it that way, of television and radio listeners licences free of charge. In other words, the charges which previously applied for those licences were abolished. This removed some anomalies and some sense of discrimination which was felt by many retired people who, although on a pension, were not entitled to those fringe benefits under the previous arrangements. For other fringe benefits pensions will still have a pensioner card and will be able to establish their eligibility for those benefits.

page 1359

QUESTION

ANIMAL QUARANTINE STATION

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Health will be aware that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works was instructed as a matter of urgency to investigate and recommend on the site for an off-shore maximum security animal quarantine station. This proposal, I might add, has the support of all major political parties, industry organisations and, I believe the Minister and his Department. This Committee reported to Parliament in September 1973 in favour of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Now, 18 months later, nothing has happened. I ask the Minister: When will the Government allow the recommendation to be put to Parliament so that construction of the station can begin as the matter is urgent? If there appears to be some problem which will prevent early action in favour of Cocos Islands, will the Minister consider referring the matter back to the Committee for recommendation of another site, such as Christmas Island?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is true that there has been a regrettable delay which hinges, as I think honourable members generally will be aware, on the relationship between the Clunies Ross family and the inhabitants of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. My colleague the Special Minister of State is engaged in negotiating matters of principle with the Clunies Ross estate. For this reason I believe it is inappropriate that the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee be acted on further at this time. I am hopeful that these negotiations will be concluded speedily, because it is urgent that we have facilities to speed up the import of varieties of beef cattle and other cloven-hoofed animals that will be accommodated in the off-shore quarantine station.

page 1360

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Social Security heard suggestions that the Government is preventing the National Health Services Association, a voluntary health fund in South Australia, from paying full hospital benefits to special account patients? Is there any discrimination against this fund? Is it a fact that the Mutual Hospital Association in the same State is paying full hospital benefits to special account patients?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-Firstly, I should point out that the special account is an arrangement whereby patients who are in hospital suffering a chronic condition, whose hospitalisation exceeds a certain number of days and who are insured, have their hospital charges met by the Government. This represents more than 20 per cent of the benefits paid by private funds and is an indication of the very substantial subsidy which is necessary to maintain the present inefficient and quite discredited system of private health insurance. In fact, without special benefit, contributions would have to be increased substantially.

The facts are that following the Nimmo committee of inquiry report in 1969 steps were taken by the previous Government to rationalise the myriad of hospital benefits scales under the system of hospital benefits into 3 benefit rates based essentially on the prevailing rates in each State of public ward, intermediate ward and private ward charges. As time went by the Government discovered that some private hospital charges were exceeding considerably the charges applied for private ward treatment in public hospitals. In 2 States, South Australia and Queensland, approval was given to introduce a fourth table- a private hospital table. In each case there was an agreement on the part of the funds which provided that fourth table that they would not draw on the special account beyond the level which would be necessary to meet the cost of private ward bed charges for hospital patients and that the difference between that and the actual amount which was charged in private hospitals would be met from the ordinary account- that is, from the financial resources of those private funds.

Most of the funds in the 2 States concerned have adhered to the undertaking they gave but some funds have not. One is Mr Moon’s fundthe National Health Services Association in South Australia. Another is the Medical Benefits Fund which is headed by Mr Jack Cade and which is the medical fund of the Australian Medical Association. Any representative of any fund who says that the Australian Government is preventing it from paying a full benefit rate to people in the circumstances outlined by the honourable member for Kingston is being totally dishonest. Not only is he being totally dishonest; but if in fact the funds are not providing the full benefit rate they are not fulfilling the undertaking which they gave to the Australian Government as a condition of it allowing them to provide this new table of hospital benefits at an increased rate. I am afraid that Mr Moon and men like him are exposing their own dishonourableness in this particular situation.

page 1360

QUESTION

INDONESIAN DETAINEES

Mr MACPHEE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister inform the house why he did not raise with President Suharto the question of Indonesian political prisoners?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did; and not for the first time. In the 3 meetings I have had with President Suharto as Prime Minister, I did.

page 1360

QUESTION

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Health verify whether the New South Wales State Government has not agreed to pay its contribution towards the cost of community health centres run by voluntary organisations?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

-Confirming the question, I take it that the honourable member is asking whether New South Wales has met its responsibility in contributing towards the cost of community health centres in that State.

Mr Thorburn:

– The ones run by voluntary organisations.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– By and large the States have co-operated well in the community health program and are meeting 25 per cent of the capital cost and 10 per cent of the running costs of the centres that have been constructed. In New South Wales there are only 27 of these centres which are not actually State-sponsored but are sponsored by voluntary organisations. Unfortunately, while some of these centres are performing a valuable service and have come into existence as the result of community initiative and activity which the State has approved in principle, the State has said that they must raise 10 per cent of the running costs which is not provided for under our legislation and they must meet 25 per cent of the capital costs, not from the State contribution but from other sources. This has embarrassed some of the centres, particularly in the less affluent suburbs. The only recourse that we have is to advise these organisations to form some kind of loose confederation on a national basis. If they are represented by a national body then we will fund them as a national body 100 per cent of the cost. This will get around the problem.

I regret that the State is so shortsighted. It ought to know that the fostering of community health care is one of the major ways it can save itself the enormous escalation of costs, particularly of capital costs, of hospital care. These are preventive, educational and rehabilitative projects. These are the things that are most necessary if the escalation of health costs is to be contained.

page 1361

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr McVeigh proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister.) ‘ Mr SPEAKER-Order! The question is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Any questions naming persons must be placed on the notice paper. The honourable member did not ask a question. I think that the honourable member ought to know by now the difference between asking a question and answering one.

page 1361

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Can the Treasurer tell the House how a Budget deficit of a kind he has indicated can work to stimulate economic activity and therefore restore employment to the kind of levels that prevailed in our time when government actions over a long period have destroyed the confidence of the business sector to take up excess capacity in the economy?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The main causes of inflation in Australia happened in the time when the former Liberal-Country Party Government of which the honourable member was a member was in power. It was in 1972 that the economy expanded and that the money supply rose 25 per cent at the end of the year. That was all done by the Government led by the honourable member for Lowe as a desperate attempt to remove the unemployment which was endangering his Government ’s electoral prospects. In 1 972 all the forces of inflation were liberated into the Australian economy and nothing whatever was done. There was a great need, recognised by every economist in Australia, to appreciate the Australian dollar so that an inflow of funds which were moving the economy into inflation would be regulated. But of course nothing could be done about that. The Australian Country Party ensured that that was so. So inflation began to operate. All the forces that eventually caused the 1973-74 inflation were operating before December 1972.

Immediately our Government came to office we took the course of action which should have been taken 6 months or 12 months before if inflation was to have been moderated at all. Economists around the country have agreed that consequently the inflation that actually occurred was perhaps up to even 10 per cent less than it would otherwise have been in 1973-74. Now the honourable gentleman asks me what effect the deficit has on stimulating employment to higher levels. I have pointed out already in answer to the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning that two-thirds of the increased deficit has gone directly into encouraging expenditure and activity in the private sector. I point out now that of the existing deficit of $3,000m more than $ 1,000m is a reduction in taxation which means that the community has more money to spend on goods and services, to remove the stocks that have been a drag on industry for some time, and to stimulate demand in general. I am quite sure that the average citizen of this country would appreciate the extent to which taxation has been reduced- more than $ 1,000m in the case of direct taxation and about $200m to $300m in the case of sales tax. This is all a direct stimulus to the economy.

Not only our economy but also every other economy in the world has been in such a situation. One country after another has now turned to a policy of reflation. This morning there are reports in the financial newspapers and in some of the others that Japan is beginning a program of reflation. The Australian Government was one of the first to undertake the necessary action to stimulate the levels of employment and activity, to take up unused capacity and to get the economy going. I am quite sure that almost everyone in Australia applying his common sense will agree that that is a sound economic policy for the Government to follow.

page 1362

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that the Australian Medical Association has sent out a letter to its members asking them to sabotage the Medibank scheme? Is the Minister aware of the contents of this letter? To what extent is this action likely to jeopardise a smooth introduction of the scheme on 1 July?

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-Yes, I have noted the contents of the letter but I prefer to await 1 July and the period immediately thereafter. It is my clear impression from communications we are receiving in my office and in the Health Insurance Commission and its State offices that a very high proportion of doctors will bulk bill and cooperate with the Medibank program, and that this proportion will increase rather rapidly over a short term. I am quite confident the scheme will be successful. Among other reasons I base this on the general high level of responsibility and integrity that individual members of the medical profession display in their conduct.

page 1362

QUESTION

NORTH VIETNAMESE DELEGATION TO AUSTRALIA

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that a North Vietnamese delegation from Hanoi arrived in Australia on 29 March last at the height of the blitzkrieg against South Vietnam? If so, was the delegation met in Brisbane by an Australian Labor Party senator on behalf of the Government? Can the Prime Minister say whether this blatant public association, following similar previous public associations by the Deputy Prime Minister with known communists, is approved policy of his Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-A delegation did arrive. I do not remember the date or the place of the arrival.

I do not know whether any parliamentarian met the delegation. Certainly anyone who did meet it did not do so on behalf of the Government.

page 1362

QUESTION

STATE ROAD WORKS

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Will the Minister inform the House the present position on program approvals for State road works to be financed under the National Roads Act and the Roads Grants Act? What is the position regarding the State of South Australia?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The programs of each of the States for national highways, urban arterial and urban local roads, minor improvements for traffic engineering and road safety- MITERS- and beef roads have all been approved for the year 1974-75. In fact, at the present time the States are preparing programs for 1975-76. Quite a deal of politics has been played in this matter in that some of the States which have been unhappy with the system have been trying to lay the blame on the Australian Government for the allocation of funds under the categories of rural local and rural arterial roads. In actual fact, the States have been completely free to allocate the funds that the Australian Government has paid to them on a pro rata basis in the categories of rural arterial and rural local roads. The States determined the programs, they approved them and they allocated the funds wherever they wanted to allocate them. The Australian Government had no say in it. The Government realised when it brought the scheme in that there would be some difficulty in administration of the Act and therefore, in order to co-operate with the States, we made the concession to them that they would be able to determine their own allocations.

We have asked the States to give us their programs for rural arterial roads for the year 1 975-76. We have also asked them for programs for rural local roads. The States have said that there are problems involved in this and the Government has suggested to them, in order to get their co-operation and to work with them, that they might give us their methods for disbursing the funds so that we can consider them. Whatever has been done in respect of rural local roads and rural arterial roads has been done with the maximum co-operation on the part of the Australian Government in an endeavour to assist the States so that this new scheme of payments for roads can be introduced in the best way and cause the least amount of confusion. The honourable member for Grey inquired about the position of South Australia. That State this year will receive $ 16.4m for national highways and $ 14.3m in total under the Roads Grants Act. This money is being paid to the States on the basis that, as they spend it, we compensate them for the expenditure.

page 1363

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Is it a fact that there is only one oil exploration well being drilled in Australia at the present time, that being off-shore South Australia? Does the Minister consider that that is a serious situation when Australia is facing a decline in production from its own fields by the early 1980s? In this serious and urgent situation, how does the Government intend to stimulate oil drilling throughout Australia?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-The situation at the present time is a very simple one. A lot of ofF-shore explorers are treading water until the result of the High Court case becomes known. In other words, there is a fair amount of fudging being done. In respect of the honourable member’s home State, he of all people ought well to know that the conditions for exploration that were imposed there are so minimal as to be appalling. I refer him to my answer to a previous question in this House today, which he either did not listen to or did not want to understand. The hard truth is that quite deliberately there is not an adequate pattern of drilling obligations being imposed. The policy that is being pursued by my counterpart in his State is such that the off-shore areas will be locked up for a further 5 years. The game, of course, that they are playing- they are foxingmeans that, having locked up these areas, they will then pursue their pattern of seeking to farm them out. If farmouts are to be done they will be done by the Australian Government. If any company is sitting on more off-shore areas than it can adequately drill, test and explore, let it return them to their true owners, the people of Australia. We are entitled to a half stake in the off-shore resources of Australia and we intend to get it.

page 1363

QUESTION

HOUSING INDUSTRY

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Housing and Construction say what progress is being made in establishing an indicative planning process for the housing industry?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is quite inconceivable that without planning the essential components of the housing industry can be brought together in sufficient proportions to ensure the successful performance of that industry. In consideration of that philosophy the Australian Government decided to set out to plan the industry. On 2 1 February last, with the participation of the Prime Minister, the Housing Indicative Planning Council was launched on a national basis. I am pleased to have had some indications of cooperation from the Opposition about this matter. On 1 May the State counterpart of that Council will be launched in South Australia, on 6 May it will be launched in Tasmania, on 9 May in Queensland and subsequently it will be launched in at least 2 other States. I regret to say that at this stage there is no indication of co-operation by the Western Australian Government which, I believe, could benefit a great deal by planning processes. I am hopeful there will be a change of heart so we can launch a counterpart of the Housing Indicative Planning Council in that State.

So far, on the national scene, we have had the co-operation of all the significant sections of the housing industry, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association and the significant lending institutions. The stated aims of the Indicative Planning Council are to determine desirable and feasible levels of housing for the triennium ahead and over a 3-year rolling period to reduce fluctuations in the housing industry, to attain optimum outputs, to maintain employment, and to assist in forward planning in respect of finance, land, materials and skilled labour. I believe that this is an extremely significant initiative which has been taken by this Government. It deserves the wholehearted support of all sections of the industry, all governments and the Opposition. I hope it will result in the housing aspirations of the Australian people being more adequately fulfilled in the future than they ever have been in the past.

page 1363

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr LYNCH:

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and follows an answer to a question given by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier in question time. I ask the honourable gentleman whether he said to the Young Labor Association conference on 25 January of this year that excessive wage demands had caused Australia’s unemployment and inflation crisis? Did he go on to say that you have to place the blame on wage claims? Did he further go on to say that wage claims over the past 12 months have so greatly reduced the profitability of employers that they have ceased to employ? I ask the Prime Minister how he reconciles that statement by himself with the statement made during question time today that inflation was caused principally by events and policies which occurred during the period of the former Liberal-Country Party administration?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Treasurer was pointing out that the inflationary situation was already bad at the time when this Government was first elected. He indicated and he demonstrated that the forces which were about at that time, through the inefficiency of the previous Government, were about to have a much more serious effect. He identified those forces, such as excessive liquidity, inflow of capital and under-valuation of the Australian dollar. There was nothing whatever inconsistent with what I said on that occasion to which the honourable gentleman refers and to which I have made subsequent reference. At the moment, the principal feature of inflation- not the only one, but the principal one- has been the excessive wage and salary demands or grants. That is the principal one.

page 1364

QUESTION

NATIONAL PARKS

Mr FRY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. Following gazettal of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which provides for the setting up of an Australian Government National Parks and Wildlife Service, will the Minister please indicate when we might expect the GudgenbyMount Kelly area in the Australian Capital Territory and the Kakadu area in the Northern Territory to be proclaimed as national parks?

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– As the House will recall, in the course of the debate on the National Parks and Wildlife Service legislation, we conceded the need to allow public participation in the decision to declare areas national parks. I know that the 2 areas mentioned by the honourable member have been discussed for a long time. However, the legislation laid down a certain train of procedures. This provides that the director has to prepare a proposal which has to be made available to the community for general discussion or criticism before it finally comes forward for processing through my Department and through this House. At the time when the Bill was passed, we did not have a director. I finalised the appointment of a director only last week.

That procedure has been set in motion. It may sound long winded to many people in the community who want me just to declare areas national parks, but many interests are involved and we intend to pursue the procedures which, I might say, were modified, on the basis of proposals made by the Opposition, to take into account various community interests. However, I hope I can allay the community’s anxieties by pointing out that the train of events has been set in motion, that the parks will be declared in the foreseeable future and that everyone will have a chance to discuss each program for the control and management of national parks.

page 1364

QUESTION

NATIONAL COAL RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘National Coal Research Advisory Committee Tenth Annual Report 1975’. In tabling this document I am fulfilling again an undertaking given in my response to question No. 907 put by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony).

page 1364

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of” honourable members I present the reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority, in accordance with section 30 (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, in respect of the following matters: Sheets and plates of iron or steel, dated 12 February 1975; Spectacles, sunglasses, goggles and frames, etc, dated 18 February 1975; and Precision ground steel ball bearings, dated 4 March 1975.

page 1364

MARGINAL DAIRY FARMS RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 5 (5) of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 I present agreements made with each of the 6 States in relation to the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme. Copies of the agreements relating to Victoria and Tasmania will be distributed to all honourable members, but due to the limited number available at this time arrangements have been made to have reference copies of the agreements relating to New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1364

WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Delegation on the World Food Conference held in Rome from 15 to 16 November 1974.

page 1365

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SYSTEM

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the principles to govern the transfer of the non -metropolitan South Australian railway system to the Australian Government.

page 1365

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament for conversion to metric measure of the maximum permissible rate of charge on exports of dried fruits, as provided in the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1924-1970. Shortly after it came to office this Government accepted the principle, adopted by the previous Government in January 1970, that Australia should convert to use of the metric system as the system of measurement of physical quantities. The Metric Conversion Board, which was established to guide and facilitate the changeover, has reported that by June 1974, metric conversion in Australia was more than 50 per cent complete. Numerous Australian industries have already converted to metric measurement, and many others are well advanced in their conversion programs. The dried vine fruits industry converted to metric measurement with the commencement of the present season on 1 March 1 975. The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board therefore recommended the changes which the Government is now putting before this House in this Bill.

One variation proposed in the Bill is to substitute the metric unit, the kilogram, for the imperial unit, the pound, on which the charge on exports of dried fruits is based. A second proposed variation provides that the maximum rate of charge which may be applied will be altered from ‘three-tenths of a cent for each pound’ to ‘seven- tenths of a cent for each kilogram’. This is simply a substitution of the nearest rational metric equivalent of the previous rate, although it incidentally results in an increase of 5.8 per cent in the maximum rate of charge. I may add that the actual rate of charge is prescribed by a regulation made under the Act.

At present it is half the maximum permissible rate.

Funds raised under the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act provide the major part of the income of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, which is responsible for controlling the export, and the sale and distribution after export, of Australian dried currants, sultanas and raisins. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr E. L. Robinson) adjourned.

page 1365

DRIED FRUITS LEVY BILL 1975

Bill presented by Dr Patterson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory · Dawson · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament for conversion to metric measure of the maximum permissible rates of levy on dried fruits received at packing houses, as provided in the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. This Government has maintained the principle adopted by its predecessor that Australia should convert to use of the metric system as the system of measurement of physical quantities. I understand that metric conversion in Australia is more than half completed, and that numerous industries have already converted fully. With the conversion of the dried vine fruits industry from the commencement of the present season on 1 March 1975, the Dried Fruits Research Committee recommended, and the Government favours, the changes which are now being put before the House in this Bill.

One amendment proposed in the Bill is to substitute the metric unit, the tonne, for the imperial unit, the ton, on which the levies are based. A second proposed amendment provides that the maximum rates of levy which may be applied will be altered from ‘one dollar per ton’ to ‘one dollar per tonne’ in the case of dried vine fruits, and from ‘five dollars per ton’ to ‘five dollars per tonne’ in the case of dried tree fruits. This is simply a substitution of the nearest rational metric equivalents of the previous rates, although it incidentally results in increases of 1 .6 per cent in the maximum rates of levy. I may add that the actual rates of levy are prescribed by regulations made under the Act. At present they are half the maximum rates. Funds raised under the Dried Fruits Levy Act provide the main basis for the financing of the Dried Fruits Research Committee, which is responsible to the Government for sponsoring scientific, technical or economic research in connection with the production, processing or packaging of dried fruits. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson) adjourned.

page 1366

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Daly on behalf of Mr Clyde Cameron and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for references and appeals to a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in connection with industrial matters concerning pilots, navigators and flight engineers within the jurisdiction of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. The intention is that flight crew officers should be put as nearly as possible in the same position as employees in the Commission’s jurisdiction. The effect of the application to the Tribunal of the reference provisions along the lines of those in section 34 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act would be that any industrial question before the Tribunal could be referred to a Full Bench of the Commission if the President of the Commission was of the view that a matter of important public interest was involved. The effect of the application of provisions along the lines of those in section 35 would be that arbitrated awards and a refusal to certify an agreement in settlement or prevention of a dispute would be subject to appeal to a Full Bench. As is now the position in relation to the Commission, certified agreements and awards made by consent would not be subject to appeal.

To understand why there currently exists this anomalous position where the reference and appeal provisions apply to other employees coming under the coverage of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but not to flight crew officers, one has to go back to the establishment in 1967 of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal as special machinery to deal with industrial disputes involving pilots, navigators and flight engineers in the airlines industry. The Government of the time was opposed, as is the present Government, to constituting special tribunals in the industrial field. However, there were very special circumstances to be dealt with. Following the Australian Industrial Court’s decision on more than one occasion to impose the maximum penalties under the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act on the association covering air pilots, the PilOtS had broken away from the arbitration system in 1 959. They had set up a new organisation, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which they refused to register under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and they had gone to great lengths to frustrate any attempts to bring them back within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It was in this context that the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal was established.

Under the Act as it now stands, the Tribunal alone is independent of the reference and appeal provisions. Presidential members as well as Commissioners are subject to references and appeals, not only with regard to their work within their Panels but also when they are assigned to specific industries under Divisions 2 to 5 of Part III of the Act, such as the maritime industries, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme and the stevedoring industry. The only specific industry under the Act which does not come within these provisions is the civil aviation industry with respect to flight crew. Moreover, the person who constitutes the Tribunal is also and concurrently a Presidential Member of the Commission. Thus we have the position that in one of his capacities the Tribunal is subject to the provisions, but not when he is acting in the other capacity.

If it is desirable that the knowledge and experience of a Full Bench- that is at least 3 members, 2 of whom must be Presidential Membersshould be available to deal with matters of important public interest and to protect parties to awards and the community against the consequences of possible error or misjudgment by Presidential Members of the Commission, it is equally desirable that that knowledge and experience should be available in relation to a Presidential Member of the Commission who constitutes the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. The appeal provisions establish a means whereby a Full Bench can remedy anomalous or other defective decisions. The reference provisions are a means whereby general principles can be formulated for application in relation to matters of importance to the community in general and whereby disputes of major significance can be brought before a Full Bench in the public interest.

It is anomalous that only pan of a significant national industry such as the civil aviation industry is currently within the scope of the reference and appeal provisions. It is anomalous that some employees under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are covered by those provisions while others under that Act are not. It is anomalous that a member of the Commission acting in one capacity is subject to the reference and appeal provisions but not when he is acting in another one. The passage of this Bill will rectify these anomalies. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to delete certain transitional provisions and to make some minor tidying up amendments to Part IIIa. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 1367

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Enderby, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honourable members are aware, the drafting of Bills for the Parliament is carried out by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Office was established in 1970 by our predecessors in government, and honourable members on both sides of the House agreed then that the establishment of the Office was a worthwhile move. Experience has confirmed the success of this move. However it is very doubtful whether the Office would have been able to meet the demands made on it in relation to Bills if a further step in streamlining the process of drafting Bills had not been taken. That further step was taken by this Government in 1 973 when the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was, by administrative arrangement, relieved of the responsibility for drafting ordinances and regulations and of the work associated with the printing of laws. Much relates to the laws of the Australian Capital Territory. It was transferred to a specially created division in the Attorney-General’s Department. .These arrangements have been an undoubted success and it is now proposed that what has hitherto rested upon an administrative basis only should be confirmed legislatively, and this is one of the purposes of the Bill. Clause 3 provides for the statement of functions of the Office as at present expressed in the Act to be brought into line with the factual position by confining them to Bill drafting and closely related work.

Honourable members will note that the functions of the Office, both under the existing Act and as proposed to be restated in the Bill, are not confined to drafting for the Government. This Government has continued the practice of previous governments of authorising the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to provide drafting services for private members, on a confidential basis when so desired by the member concerned, where this is possible having regard to commitments for drafting required by the Government. In fact a great deal of assistance has been given by the Office to Opposition members, as well as Government members, particularly in the drafting of amendments to Bills. Unfortunately, it is not possible on all occasions to authorise the Office to draft Bills for private members, particularly where they amount to major legislative projects. However, the legislative confirmation of the present functions of the Office will help to ensure that the Office will be able to continue to give the maximum of help to private members.

The Government also proposes to make a change in the ministerial responsibility for the Office. Although the First Parliamentary Counsel and his staff have always maintained, and will continue to maintain, close professional collaboration with the Attorney-General and officers of his Department, it is felt that, because the work of the Office is concerned with the overall legislative requirements of governments, the ministerial responsibility for the Office should lie with the Prime Minister.

It is proposed to make the necessary change in the Administrative Arrangements Order, but, because of some references in the Parliamentary Counsel Act to the Attorney-General, the Act will also need to be consequently amended. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore provides for those references to be replaced by references to ‘the Minister’, who, by virtue of the change to be made in the Administrative Arrangements, will be the Prime Minister.

The Bill also provides for a number of purely formal and consequential amendments, including a consequential amendment of the Legislative Drafting Insititute Act. I commend the Bill to honurable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned.

page 1367

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Stewart had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should give expression to the following principles-

a) that the family is the basic and stable unit of the Australian society;

that marriage should be buttressed;

that marriages should be permanent and secure;

that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as wife and mother;

that there should be full and proper protection of the wife and children in the event of the dissolution of a marriage;

that there is need for children to be reared and cared for by a present parent; and

that marriage should be dissolved only when a Court is satisfied on objective grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down or that the parties have lived separately and apart for not less than two years”.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-In the case of social issues such as this Bill I believe it is important for honourable members to express where they stand. This is my reason for entering the debate for a few brief minutes. I make it quite clear from the outset that I support the Bui. A voluminous amount of correspondence has been landing on my desk- some for, some against, some from people in my electorate and some from people in all parts of Australia. A minority of the correspondence has been hectoring and threatening in tone, which I regret. A proportion has been pleading. Some letters have been well informed and constructive in putting a case for or against the Bill. Others though sincere have been ill informed, not informed or deliberately misinformed. Still others are just of the chain letter type.

I accept the right of people to express their views to me as a member of the Australian Parliament. I was rather perturbed initially at some comment that was made with regard to the length of discussion to be allowed for the Bill. This Bill came from the Senate where it had been the subject of Committee examination. In fact it had been the subject of hours of examination by that chamber and many amendments came forward as a result of that examination. I am also perturbed at the bland assumption by some that this Bill strikes at the very roots of marriage and that all evil flows from it. It is said that this Bill makes divorce easy and will allow people to enter marriage carelessly. This seems a ridiculous argument as any couple prepared to take this attitude would not bother about marriage but would simply live together as that is not illegal.

It has been said that this Bill will destroy happy marriages. Let us face it, legislation does not lay the basis for happy marriage. The basis for happy marriage lies in the character of the people concerned. Many factors contribute to this such as home background and upbringing, education and opportunity, religious belief and training, and the sort of moral code, ethics and attitude that has been inculcated in individuals during their lifetime. This legislation serves to attempt to preserve marriage through the mechanism for conciliation and reconciliation. I think adequate provision is made in this held. But when the break up is final the legislation makes the process as sympathetic and humane as possible.

I am surprised at some of the high emotion that has accompanied the discussion on this matter. One of the opponents of the Bill described a happy marriage as hard work. After 24 years experience of happy marriage I do not believe this. I think it is an entirely wrong concept to say that happy marriage is hard work. Nor can I accept the amendment that has been put forward as I believe the Bill is fully relevant to the majority of points made. I see no virtue in increasing the time for separation from one to two years as is suggested in paragraph (g) of the amendment. In fact, if the question of time is to be discussed, surely this would be better done in the Committee stage of the Bill. What virtue is there in 2 years as against one year? Surely after 12 months it would be obvious whether a marriage had irretrievably broken down.

I am also concerned about the attitude expressed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the amendment, namely, that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as a wife and mother and that there should be full and proper protection of the wife and children in the event of the dissolution of a marriage. Why should the husband, the father, the male, be excluded from the same sorts of considerations? Those who have experience in counselling in these situations know that very often the male is the one left with the children, accumulated debts and all sort of problems. It seems a little hypocritical to me to concentrate on just that phase. As a medical practitioner, a former member of a State parliament and a member of this Parliament, I have frequently been called upon by one or other or both parties to a broken marriage to do some counselling.

One of the most distressing features in this area has been the concept of matrimonial fault and what flows from it. The need for one to be the guilty party carries all sorts of distress. For example, the husband is forced to use private investigators to provide evidence of his wife’s adultery, or the reverse may be the position. Even worse are the stratagems that have been used so that one party can be seen to be at fault or can be seen to be guilty, although in fact no guilt may attach, or the situation when a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the procedures could have been gone through quietly and with the rninimum of ill will but the concept of matrimonial fault has led to an extreme adversary situation which results in a lifetime of ill will and which is reflected on any children of the marriage. This Bill takes a far more compassionate attitude.

A further important factor is that there will be reduced financial strain on the parties because of the cost of proceedings in dealing with a break-up of marriage. It seems to me that the Bill places the welfare and custody of children on a reasonably enlightened basis. It is obvious that in the past there has been an inbuilt bias with regard to maintenance and property in such proceedings. I believe that this Bill makes adequate allowances in that area and that the new principles are commonsense ones. I do not believe that they place either party to a broken marriage at a disadvantage. Those who allege that they do so do not seem to have studied the guidelines that are laid down in the BUI, particularly those in clause 75. 1 think they spell out in some detail the factors that are properly to be taken into consideration and that will lead to a reasoned and reasonable result.

At this late stage in the second reading debate it is difficult to raise anything that is new. Most things that ought to have been said have been said. I can only affirm my support for what I believe is a socially responsible Bill which preserves human dignity and lessens the trauma for those forced to make use of its provisions after the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-This legislation proposes a major change in the structure of Australian society. The nature and quality of the debate indicates that this Parliament is well aware of the profound effects of radical changes in the nation’s divorce laws. It also clearly indicates the very broad spectrum of opinion and attitude that exists within our nation on this issue. There is an urgent need for divorce reform. Our present archaic legislation does nothing to promote a strengthening of a human relationship. Where difficulties have developed in a marriage and hostilities exist, our current laws have, I believe, led to a further deterioration. Vindictiveness, indignity and hatred too frequently are the results of divorce proceedings.

We are dealing here with the relationship of human beings, with a situation that requires tolerance, patience and many compromises of 2 people usually with different personalities. I doubt that anyone who has had a deep relationship with another person, where love and respect have existed, will rush into divorce with gay abandon or irresponsibility irrespective of the divorce laws. However, marriage must begin with a strong conviction that it is to be a lasting contract and union between 2 people- a contract not to be taken lightly but at the same time a recognition of the understanding and involvement that will be required for success. It is in this environment that our divorce laws of today must be framed. They must be framed with some restraint upon each person and yet be humane, just and of a reality to protect disrupted lives without leaving them scarred by hate, disgust and contempt

Before dealing with aspects of this Family Law Bill 1 974 in closer detail I must comment on approaches that have been taken by some speakers in this debate as well as representations from the Australian community at large. Over past months all of us as members of Parliament have been inundated with volumes of letters from individuals and groups expressing their concern either for or against this Bill. It is totally unfair and sometimes dishonest to point to any section of these representations, as some honourable members have done, as bigoted, selfrighteous or self-seeking. Every person in a democracy should have his belief considered with respect. It is also not correct to quote religious denominations or community organisations as strictly adhering to one view or another. Within every church there are divisions of opinion, as there are within other groups. In the majority of representations, however, one thing is quite evident, and that is that this legislation’s intent and content are not understood. There is a clear lack of communication with the electorate at large on this Bill, as there is on many initiatives of the Government or Parliament.

Too many of our people see this legislation, depending on their beliefs, as a complete threat to the institution of marriage as the basic unit of society, or on the other hand as the complete answer in removing the resentment and bitterness that occur when marriage breakdowns and divorce proceedings are inevitable. Neither extreme point of view is acceptable. Seldom is legislation black or white. No Bill that this Parliament produces will remove entirely the trauma and heartbreak of a family disruption. Equally, a parliament cannot by legislation establish a moral attitude or a social standard. Our responsibility is to compromise a difficult situation whereby our actions do not promote a relaxed attitude to the value and institution of marriage but at the same time we recognise that we are dealing with human lives and relationships in which friction, difficulties and irretrievable breakdowns do occur.

I turn to the aspects of this Bill that meet with my approval. The extension of counselling and reconciliation facilities is to be commended, as is the establishment of family courts where private proceedings can take place. Of course, we can all argue about the effectiveness of these initiatives and we can doubt their applications; but the expressed intent is good and should be supported. The benefits and results of these clauses depend not on this Bill but on the future successful and dedicated administration of its provisions. It has been correctly argued that adequate counselling before marriage is more desirable. Of course we are all in agreement with that; we may wish to argue about it on this Bill. But unfortunately it does not come within the ambit of this legislation.

There are 123 clauses in this Bill. Following over 100 amendments by the Opposition in the Senate, this Bill is now greatly improved. Today the main causes of concern revolve around clause 48, which of course contains the true philosophy of the legislation. Clause 48 ( 1 ) states:

An application under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be based on the f round that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. (2) Subject to sub-section (3) in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for dissolution of marriage. (3) A decree . . . shall not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.

This clause states 2 objectives: Firstly, it provides for the removal of fault provisions from the Act. On this issue I give my support. The proof of fault in divorce proceedings has made a farce of law and has greatly damaged the institution of marriage. Parties to divorce proceedings have, under the existing law, suffered great indignity, bitterness and hostility and resorted in many cases to fraud. Once proceedings have reached this level of confrontation great damage occurs to the human relationship, huge cost and expenses occur and the fracturing of the family ties where children are involved is often irreparable.

All divorce proceedings must produce heartbreak and trauma but this objective should assist in producing a more humane judgment. The second objective of this clause relates to the time of separation. On this issue all of us as individuals must satisfy our own beliefs and research. As a Christian, I believe marriage should be regarded as a contract mutually undertaken by 2 people for life. It should neither be entered into lightly nor broken lightly. On this basis I am convinced that a 12-month separation period by a unilateral decision of one partner will weaken the nature of the contract, will produce an attitude damaging to the values of the institution of marriage and therefore will not act as a buttress to society’s structure.

I will therefore be supporting in the Committee stage an amendment to this clause so that consenting parties only can obtain divorce within a 12-month separation period. A 24-month separation period will be necessary if the 2 parties to a divorce do not agree. It is most important that Parliament does not assist the development of an attitude among our young people that marriage is dispensable. Marriage between 2 people carries with it great responsibilities. It is the most important decision 2 people can make in their lives. Parliament has a responsibility to protect or perhaps a better word is to support a new marriage. I wish to make it quite clear that I will not support this Bill unless the objective I have mentioned is so amended. I do, however, believe that not to give this Bill a second reading would be a negative decision if ample opportunity is to be available to discuss and amend, if necessary, each clause in the Committee stage.

As the honourable member for Moreton, Mr Killen, has pointed out, mis-representation can be made if one’s attitude and methods of procedure are not understood or are misconstrued. It is not my intention to detain the House, but I must mention 2 other clauses in which I will be supporting changes. Clause 75 (2) (f), which provides for the court to take into account eligibility for social security benefits when determining maintenance, regardless of the wealth of the husband, is utter nonsense. Costs such as this should not be transferred to the state, that is to the taxpayer. If the spouse is capable of meeting his financial responsibilities to his partner or his family he should do so.

I also ask the House to look at clause 75 ( 1 ) (1) which makes a husband, if he can afford it, pay alimony to a wife who is living in a de facto relationship. This clause is contained in the present Act. It should not be continued in this Bill. It should be eliminated. It contains, and in fact supports, an adulterous relationship. As I have said, many honourable members still have to speak in this debate. A large number of amendments are to be moved in the Committee stage. I hope Parliament will give adequate time to the Committee stage of this Bill so that we can debate every clause which is causing difficulties for many of us and to which we believe some alteration should be made.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I rise to make my contribution to this debate on the very controversial Family Law Bill. I hope to reflect the attitude of my electors of Hunter. I think it is the duty of members of Parliament, irrespective of their personal views on issues such as this, to try to gauge the thinking or the people in their electorate and to reflect the opinions of the majority of people they represent. I honestly believe that the majority of the electors of Hunter would like me to support this Bill in its entirety and that is the line that I intend to pursue. I express deep appreciation to all people, both within and outside my electorate, who have expressed opinions and have made borderline threats in relation to what attitude I should take. I am sincere in saying that I appreciate the letters. Many of them in my view were sectarian inspired. Other letters which I received from inside and outside my electorate were very well written. They were sincere and aroused a great interest in my mind. In the mail this morning I received a letter from Mrs Lois Welsh, the Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Women’s Committee of the Australian Labor Party which sat last weekend. The Women’s Committee has appealed to me. Mrs Welsh, in her concluding paragraph, states:

We call on all Labor members of the National Parliament to give their full support to the Family Law Bill so that it may be passed without further delay.

I add that it should have been passed, in my view, quite a considerable time ago. I have also received correspondence this week which reveals the attitude of the ‘Catholic Worker’. It is alleged by many people who read it to be the expression of opinion of the common layman in the Catholic church. It is a monthly journal. The ‘Catholic Worker’ in its February edition states:

The Family Law Bill is enlightened legislation which would buttress marriage. The present Act has the opposite effect. Catholics for the Family Law Bill.

I have many other impressive letters but time will not permit me to read them into the records of the Parliament. In my lifetime I have seen some of the cruellest and most shockingly framed perjured evidence go before the divorce courts so that the situation became ridiculous. I am thrilled to see that the no fault clause has been inserted into this legislation by my government. However, one is forced- no matter how reluctantly- to face the realities of life. I refer to some of the frailities in the antiquated legislation which this modern legislation is intended to replace. I am sure no honourable member in this House, willingly or unwillingly, will commit an act which will violate the sanctity of marriage or destroy the value of the family unit unless under extreme inducement. But when a marriage is wrecked by one or both parties failing to observe their vows it is our obligation as parliamentarians to legislate in a manner that will bring the least harm to all concerned, particularly to the children of that union.

I want to refer briefly to how heartbreak, suffering and financial loss can be caused by foolish and unscrupulous men- wealthy, of course- in privileged positions who can manipulate the present antiquated laws to further their own nefarious ends. A few years ago in Sydney there was a case that comes to my mind in which a well-known and influential member of the New South Wales Parliament cooked up evidence for a divorce case. I have before me the record of the evidence that was sworn in the divorce court. This man and his lifelong friend, who was also a member of the Parliament, were able to persuade a perfectly innocent woman to go into the witness box and swear false evidence that she had committed adultery with the member of Parliament who wanted a divorce quickly. The legislation before us will put an end to that practice for all time.

The judge in this case was a most astute and wide awake gentleman. He was none other than one of the leaders of the New South Wales bar and chief justice in divorce- the late Wilfred Dovey. He was far from happy with the evidence. This resulted in the member who was seeking the divorce consulting with his friend about the possibility of contacting the judge behind the scenes, but after consideration they decided not to go on with the scheme. This is contained in the sworn evidence. However, later on in another court case on a completely different matter this member made available the notes and memos relating to the divorce case to a Mr Alexander Barton- whose name has been raised in this Parliament so often by me and by othersof Jetair fame, which incident caused considerable embarrassment to the previous Government. This information and the judge’s comments in that case were used to expel one of the 2 parties from the Upper House of the Parliament of New South Wales. The member expelled was Alexander Armstrong, MLC. He was expelled because of the framing of divorce evidence.

The member who gained all the advantages in this divorce case was none other than Stanley Mowbray Eskell, MLC, a top member of the Liberal Party who is still sitting in the Upper House of New South Wales. Not only did this man refuse to defend his mate, Armstrong, but he also used the privilege of Parliament to further denigrate the woman whom he had divorced. He sat in the Upper House of the New South Wales Parliament and it was his vote alone that resulted in the expulsion of his former friend from the Upper House, thus silencing Mr Armstrong, the Liberal MLC, forever. However, Mr Speaker, you will ask what was the sequel to this divorce carried out under the present law. Modern legislation of the type before us is long overdue and I am grateful to the present Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and to the previous Attorney-General for bringing down such legislation.

Let me return to the matter of the 2 members of the Legislative Council in New South Wales. This same gentleman- Stanley Mowbray Eskell, Chairman of Committees of a Liberal State Government- who gave false evidence in the New South Wales divorce court to obtain a quick divorce was then able to marry a wealthy woman. He robbed both her and her brother of over $lm in a company scandal which I have previously mentioned in this House- the San.gara Holdings scandal. When this gentleman had milked his then wife- I use the word ‘milked’ in the vernacular- when he had fleeced his then wife and her brother of their wealth he left her. When the then Mrs Eskell wanted to obtain a divorce she had to face a most horrifying and traumatic experience under the present antiquated legislation to gain her freedom from this man. To this day she has never recovered her health. That is why society should welcome the proposed legislation.

What I am getting at is that, under the present law, men of influence and wealth are able to manipulate the proceedings of the divorce courts for their own ends- evil or otherwise. Some of the advantages that Mr Eskell had which came out in the divorce evidence- let me quote from the court records which I have in my possessionwere that he was a personal friend of Sir Robert Askin and Mr Max Willis, MLC who guaranteed him a loan of $50,000 with the Rural Bank; he was a paid servant of Vam Limited which gave him $33,000 a year to lobby for it; he was a lobbyist for the Swan Brewery in Western Australiathe documents I have prove this and he confessed it in the divorce court when crossexamined by his wife’s lawyer, Mr O’Keeffe- he had Tom the Cheap, the man who is in financial difficulties now -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-In the remarks that the honourable member for Hunter is making there may be certain points that illustrate the advantage of the legislation before the Parliament but I think he is spending a little too much time on the details which are not relevant to the legislation. I suggest that he should not give quite so much detail in his speech on the Family Law Bill.

Mr JAMES:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept your guidance but I am pointing out the roguery and, if I may use the phrase, the bastardry that goes on under the antiquated, old fashioned law. I am giving an example of how it is manipulated by influential and wealthy people to gain an evil end. Reform is long overdue. If I have departed from the Bill I will endeavour to speak on it in general terms. Most of the general terms have been covered by other speakers. I believe that there is an urgent need to put this legislation on the statute book.

Awful scandals such as I have mentioned should be brought up. I have no regrets about bringing it up. Not enough of the time of the Parliament is used to expose these people, irrespective of their political colour, who have ruined the lives of people and framed divorce evidence under the present antiquated law because it was necessary to prove guilt. Under the proposed legislation one will no longer have to frame evidence against a spouse. I cannot support my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I have great respect for him. He is a dedicated member of his faith. He is to be admired because, on matters like this, he does not depart from the teachings of his faith. I admire him because he is not a flincher. We always know where he stands on such issues. Other members of Parliament who would like to support this legislation are afraid to do so because they represent borderline electorates and sectarian votes may be organised to get rid of them. We know that that happens under our political system.

Mr Hayden:

– The Protestants are not like that.

Mr JAMES:

– Do not let us kid ourselves. If I did not represent an electorate like the one I represent I may be a swinging voter- I would not like to think that I would be- with splinters in my bottom from fence sitting or a bone in my throat, unable to talk on this issue which affects the Australian people so much. I would like to think that if I did represent a borderline electorate and I was threatened with removal from the Parliament by a sectarian vote at least I would have enough guts and courage to support legislation which I honestly believe will be to the benefit of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I can see that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) has read the Family Law Bill in some detail and that it has engendered strong feelings in his soul. Although I am being facetious in saying that, I think that one of the problems some of us suffer from- I do at any rate- is the belief that this Bill could well founder as a result of the way the Parliament works. We have before us the Bill, an amendment and then we have notice, I think it is called, of another amendment by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to portion of the original amendment. Honourable members on both sides of the House believe that if they vote in a certain way in fact they might not achieve the result that they seek.

Mr Enderby:

– It has become complicated.

Mr McLEAY:

– I appreciate the AttorneyGeneral’s agreement. He says that it has become complicated. If it is complicated for him, just imagine what it is like for us poor unfortunate lay people without any training in law.

Mr Enderby:

– Perhaps it is not the law but the Standing Orders.

Mr McLEAY:

– There are ways in which the Standing Orders can be exploited to defeat the purposes of those who sponsor particular views. My personal view is to support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I will not waste too much of the time of the House. I believe that we all have a job here. We have to arrive at opinions and express them, no matter how clumsy they are or how incorrect they sometimes are. We have an obligation to our electorates. That is the reason I wish to put on record the views that I hold. I say, in disagreement with the honourable member for Hunter, that the number of letters and telegrams that I receive on the matter does not make a scrap of difference to what will end up being my view. I suppose that we have all received more letters on this subject than on any other subject. My attitude has been to read them and to file them in various places. Certainly, it has not been to count them. I heard one honourable member say that he had received so many letters for the BUI and so many letters against the Bill, and that because he had received more letters for it he was going to vote for it. Perhaps I would be more inclined to go the other way. I like to keep an open mind on these things, even if my enemies say it is pretty vacant, and make up my mind for myself.

I would be the first to agree that the present laws are not perfect and that divorce reform is highly desirable. My electorate is an urban electorate. Most other honourable members who represent that sort of electorate probably have the same experience in this matter. I estimate that perhaps 10 per cent or as much as 15 per cent of the problems that come before my office relate to marriage, breakdown of marriage, divorce, desertion and so on. One becomes something of a bush lawyer in trying to sort out these things. In fact, I think that there would not be a family in the country which has not been touched by this problem of divorce. There is not a family in the country that can remain unaffected. Therefore, we have to take a very great interest in the matter. I take the view that no matter what the divorce legislation may be- whether it is the present legislation or any future divorce legislation that we may enact- it simply will not be possible to remove all the unpleasantness which is associated with this traumatic period in a person’s life. Neither the Bill nor the amendment can ever take that unpleasantness out of divorce. If it were possible to achieve such legislation I believe that every honourable member would support it. I do not believe that this Bill will provide the panacea for all the heartbreaks and expense of divorce litigation which it is claimed it will provide. This is the reason I am supporting the amendment.

I draw attention to only 2 clauses of the Bill. They are clauses 43 and 48. I will deal very briefly with clause 43. It spells out the principles and philosophies of the Family Court. Nobody could possibly disagree with those provisions. Clause 43 deals with family provisions, the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage, the need to give the widest possible protection and asistance to the family, the need to protect the rights of children and the means available for assisting parties to the marriage to consider reconciliation. Nobody could disagree with them. They are highly commendable and are wonderful pious thoughts. Clause 43 asserts the need to assist and preserve the family. Clause 48 is the other clause to which I wish to refer specifically. I will read portion of clause 48 right on top of my summary of the principles contained in clause 43. It says, dealing with the dissolution of marriage: … in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parries separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for dissolution of marriage.

On the one hand, we have clause 43 asserting the need to assist and preserve the family and, on the other hand, we have clause 48 proposing that marriage should be brought to an end at the option of either party after a 12-months interval. Not being a lawyer, I believe that this means that . marriage would be the only legal contract which could be broken at the option of one party with the other party, who would be the offended party, being obliged to pay for the breach of contract if he or she opposed any relief sought by the first person or, in fact, sought any relief for himself or herself. Clause 117 of the Bill proposes that each party pay its own costs. For example, this means that if the wife is deserted and becomes involved in a defended maintenance proceeding, not only does she have the advantage of being deserted but also she has the very doubtful pleasure of having to pay for it.

Mr Enderby:

– With the assistance of legal aid.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister says that she will be given legal aid. She might not be satisfied with the quality of that legal aid. So far as I am concerned, if I were in that situation I would be wanting to choose my own legal adviser.

Mr Enderby:

– You can do that also.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, and pay for it. This surely means that the already complex procedures of divorce would be made even more complex and, more importantly, more unfair especially so far as women are concerned. I think that it is not unreasonable to describe this as a man’s Bill.

Mr Enderby:

– The women ‘s organisations support it.

Mr McLEAY:

-This is the next point I wish to make. The Attorney-General mentioned that all the women’s groups are its strongest supporters. It concerns me very much that the women’s organisations in this country, or many of them, are either silent or very strong supporters of the legislation. It concerns me because in my view if this legislation is carried in its present form it will culminate in discrimination against women. I think that these women’s organisations should be drawing attention to this fact. I received a telegram from someone who lives in my electorate. It stated:

Women’s Electoral Lobby supports those who support the Family Law Bill.

I take it that if I do not support the Bill the Women’s Electoral Lobby will actively campaign against me. This distresses me.

Mr Kelly:

– They did not have you very high on the list last time.

Mr McLEAY:

– No, they did not have me very high on their list of preferred candidates last time, as my friend and colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) makes the point. He was very annoyed because they had him below me on their list of preferred candidates.

Mr Kelly:

– I think it was the other way round.

Mr McLEAY:

– No. I was on the bottom of the list and the honourable member for Wakefield was second last.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Are you debating where you will be?

Mr McLEAY:

– There is no doubt about where we are on this legislation. I believe that women’s organisations should be drawing attention to the discrimination against women which will be involved if this Bill is passed. In fact, they are doing just the opposite. It is all very well for professional women or women with a vocation; they have a degree of independence which gives them some immunity from the damage caused by this legislation. But most women in the community are not professional women. In my view these organisations represent only professional women; they do not represent the majority of women in the community.

The effect of clause 48, in my view, would be especially damaging to young married couples and in particular to young married women. It would put them in the situation of women in some other countries where the husband partner can make a unilateral declaration of divorce with the old: ‘I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you’. He says that three times and he is divorced.

Mr Armitage:

– That is for men only.

Mr McLEAY:

– I regard this as a men only Bill. In the situation of a young married couple it surely must not be uncommon for the young wife, having had a row with her husband, to tell her friends and her family that she believes she has been involved in a major row with her husband. I suppose we have all seen this sort of thing. In many cases interfering parents and others encourage her to see a solicitor. From that moment there is a commitment to divorce. Twelve months after the date on which the husband or the wife claims cohabitation ceased the marriage is finished. I believe that there is a disadvantage also to men. For example, if this legislation were passed a wife unilaterally could seek and obtain a divorce from a husband who was out of the country for more than 12 months. What about the situation of someone in the Air Force at Butterworth or somewhere else? It is possible under this legislation that he could be divorced without ever being able to defend himself.

The worst feature of the Bill is the way it discriminates against middle-aged wives with children. I think it is reasonable to claim that many of them have voluntarily entered the work force, but at least half of them- probably more- are still at home. Often they have not worked because their husbands virtually would not allow them to work. How many honourable members would be in that situation? I suppose I would have to put myself in that category. My wife is at home looking after the 3 children and I am the one who works. I do not want her to work. If I found a highly attractive young girl down the street and deserted my wife, under this legislation my wife would have to go out to work or prove to a court that she could not maintain herself adequately. Simply because a husband unilaterally serves notice to dispose of what he now regards as an inconvenience, the wife has to persuade the court that she cannot maintain herself, and she will be required to pay the costs of such a court appearance. In my view in this area women are grossly disadvantaged, especially compared with the situation under the existing legislation.

To take the worst example in this middle-aged area- I believe we have to admit to middleagelet us consider the case of a middle-aged family in which the husband and father commits incest upon his daughter. At present if the wife wishes she may obtain a very early divorce simply by the threat of criminal proceedings. Perhaps that will be possible in the future. I do not know. I do not think so. But under this legislation she would have to support herself and wait for 12 months or continue to live in the same house with her husband and their children. I believe that these and many other provisions of the Bill prove that it is untrue to describe the philosophy of the legislation as being irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It is much more accurate to describe it as being abandonment or unilateral declaration. I do not believe that any of us can claim a mandate to support divorce legislation framed on that basis. I trust that the amendment will be passed in its existing form. I propose to support it.

Dr J F Cairns:
Treasurer · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I support the Bill before the House. Despite what has been said and written about it, the Family Law Bill does not concern divorce alone. So much in it is outside that area, and yet so little of that has been discussed by honourable members who have taken part in the debate so far. It is a comprehensive Bill, the most comprehensive Bill dealing with family law ever to be introduced in an Australian parliament. It will be a legislative memorial to the man who designed it. It is of great historical importance. It is a humane and civilised proposal which covers many significant social matters other than the dissolution of marriage.

It is possible to list at least 15 significant social provisions of the Bill. As passed by the Senate, the major provisions of the Family Law Bill provide for the establishment of a family court in Australia for the first time; the establishment of State family courts for the first time; the ability to seek matrimonial relief in the family courts, the State supreme courts or the magistrates courts without first proceeding for divorce; the abolition of all fault grounds for divorce; joint custody of children and joint responsibility for their maintenance; widely increased use of welfare officers to help in custody disputes and in the ongoing relationship between parents; the financial responsibility of each party to a marriage and to maintain the other; criteria for the provision of maintenance for spouses and children based on the applicant’s need; the establishment of a family law council and an institute of family studies; and greatly increased counselling opportunities relating not merely to divorce and reconciliaton but also to the on-going problems of divorced persons, particularly in relation to their children. All these things are great advances. Some of them are completely new. They concern the way people have to live and the role of the state in helping them to solve real problems. Much more than the conflicts of divorce, much more than the doctrinaire considerations of divorce, is involved in this Bill.

In the debate on this Bill to date many of the broad and humane provisions of the Bill have not been accepted or even examined in their own right. Major criticisms of the Bill have been: Firstly, that it abandons fault as a ground for divorce; secondly, that it encourages quick divorce; thirdly, that 12 months is too short a period as a criterion for breakdown of marriage; fourthly, that no immediate ground for divorce is provided; and, fifthly, that the maintenance provisions of the Bill are unfair to women. Before judging these matters, I think something should be said about the basic attitudes of the judges and about marriage and divorce. Very few people flatly assert that there is nothing wrong with the existing divorce law and that it cannot be improved. Almost everyone who has spoken in this debate has said that there could be considerable improvement, but some say not now. Very few people would say that many aspects of this Bill are not acceptable to almost everybody. Even fewer people would deny that the cost of divorce is high, that the procedure is long and complicated and that the grounds for divorce, such as adultery, desertion and cruelty, promote bitterness and hostility between the parties, alienate them further from each other and have a harmful effect on their children and on everyone associated with them.

Often one result is 2 warring camps neither of which is wholly right or wholly wrong. Any reform which will reduce or eliminate any of these harmful, costly and damaging conditions is a good reform. The Bill will do much to reduce or eliminate delay, cost, bitterness and neglect. If it is the legitimate function of the state to enforce by legislation the prolongation of marriages, especially those which obviously have broken down, seeking to achieve this simply by obstructing the way to divorce by procedural and financial barriers is wrong and oppressive. If, as it does, the Family Law Bill seeks to dismantle some of these barriers, it is a good Bill. I cannot understand why the system of fault is assumed to be in the interests of anyone. By the time a party gets round to proving fault the marriage is clearly at an end. Why then should it be necessary to parade faults in public through the use of sordid procedures? The breakdown of marriage is a private tragedy which should not have to be paraded in public or proved like a crime. It is not a crime.

There are many other reasons why the existing fault grounds of divorce should be replaced. The single ground provided under this BUI is a great improvement. Under this BUI divorce will be granted on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Once the court is satisfied about that, the purpose is to see that marriage is dissolved fairly, inexpensively, without indignity and with the minimum of bitterness and hostility, and the Bill does that. Others- friends and the like- will merely know that the dissolution has taken place and will have a better chance to arrive at an understanding of the relative positions of parties rather than to pass judgment on them. I noticed a few weeks ago that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) made a point about understanding and judgment. As I understand it, Christ was slow to judge. He practised understanding and compassion. I am sure that we should approach this BUI in a spirit of understanding and compassion, and I do not believe that the emphasis laid upon fault in divorce law and practice has been anything but harmful to all those involved.

A criticism that has been made of this BUI is that the maintenance provisions are unfair to women. This may well be so because aU laws are unfair to women. Women are part of the property system and their status reflects its requirements. It is not as though women are protected by the existing law concerning family relations. Women occupy an inferior social status in Australia and society still wants to keep them in that position. The existing marriage and divorce law provides no haven for women. It is so bad that almost any change would be an improvement. The changes recommended in this legislation offer significant advances for women. The advances may not be the optimum in some eyes; nevertheless they represent a major redress of the current imbalance. The provisions in the BUI governing the welfare, maintenance and custody of children are important because the protection of children is probably the strongest justification for intervention by the state to regulate the dissolution of marriage. The more extreme denunciations of the BUI have suggested that it Will enable husbands to abandon their wives, leaving them and their children without protection. It has also been asserted that it is better for children to be brought up in a home with both parents. This is true if the parents are not hostile or fighting with each other. However, if parents are so opposed to each other, expert opinion is very far from being unanimous that it is still better for the children to be brought up by both parents together. Certainly there would be cases in which it would be not only preferable but necessary for the mental and physical well being of the children if their parents separated and the children lived with one or other parent.

There is a question of whether children have been left without protection by the Bill. It is perhaps relevant to ask how the provisions of the BUI differ from the existing law. The existing law requires parents to maintain their children; so does the BUI. The existing law prevents a divorce decree from becoming final until the court is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the welfare of the children so does the BUI. In addition to continuing these measures and introducing uniformity where the existing law is State or Territory law, the Bill contains some additional provisions such as those for separate legal representation of children in proceedings, enforcement of custody and access orders and greater use of welfare officers. I can find nothing in the Bill to suggest that wives left by their husbands will be deprived of rights that they now have regarding maintenance and custody of their children.

As I understand them, the provisions of the Bill under which a party to a marriage can apply for maintenance have the effect of making entitlement to maintenance depend on the needs of the applicant and the ability of the respondent to pay. The Bill contains a long list of matters which are related to these criteria that the courts are to take into account in reaching a decision. The inclusion of such matters as the age, state of health, income, property of the parties, a standard of living that is reasonable, the duration of the marriage and the terms of any property order, as well as the care of young children, seems to me to meet the objection of critics who claim that wives will be left without adequate means and without entitlement to maintenance. These and other matters listed would direct the court’s attention to the problems relevant to the situation of a woman left without adequate means and would ensure that she was properly provided for. With reference to the matter of providing maintenance to enable the applicant to re-train for work, this is not a direction to the court to drive a woman out to work; it is a direction to have regard to the possibility that a woman, in appropriate circumstances and with the necessary ability, could be retrained. If she were too old or physically unable to be re-trained she would not be driven out to work. I see nothing in the Bill that suggests that.

It remains to say that the Bill makes what can be described only as a decisive contribution to assisting reconciliation of estranged marriage partners where reconciliation is at all possible and it lays much greater stress on that than does the existing law. The counselling and reconciliation provisions far exceed anything now provided for parties, either before or after they begin any proceedings against each other. The Family Court, with its novel charter clearly indicated in the Bill, to help people rather than to act as an inscrutable referee, should be most effective in doing whatever can be done to reconcile parties whose marriages have run into difficulty. Mr Deputy Speaker, this measure is a most important social reform. It will affect the lives of many people. By introducing a sane, balanced law to deal with family disputes it is hoped that where marriages do break down, as they undoubtedly will continue to do under the stresses and strains of life, persons will be encouraged to adjust their transition from married life with the minimum of bitterness and animosity. At least under this legislation persons will not become financially as well as emotionally bankrupt as a result of divorce proceedings, as so often happens now. Parties to divorce proceedings may be spared these consequences towards making the effect of divorce on the children less traumatic than it is at present. This Bill does not represent the whole of the reforms which are obviously necessary in this field but it represents a realistic attempt to meet some of the most pressing human needs of today. It does so in a humane way. I hope that the Bill will pass without amendment.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Although I am going to speak only briefly, I do not want anybody to think that I do not feel deeply about this legislation. At this stage of the debate there is very little that can be said that is fresh. My main reason for speaking is to spell out briefly but sincerely where I stand on this important matter, because that is my responsibility to my constituents. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know, as other members of the House would know, that I am a conservative person and I represent a conservative electorate; I would be one of those who would be expected to vote against the Bill. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am going to vote for the Bill and I am going to vote against the amendment. I am going to vote against the amendment mainly because, although it was not meant to be a device to confuse people, it has confused a great many people and I am one of them. I am afraid that it has been a divisive element in the debate and has clouded a great deal of the logic that otherwise would have been present.

I am going to vote for the Bill. I am a puritan person; I am a puritan by nature. However, I have found with some concern that I am much more interested in other persons’ morality than my own. But if I could pass a law that would make marriage permanent I would do so. I am not the kind of person that believes in liberty to excess. If I could think of a form of law that would make marriage permanent, I would do my best to have it passed and then to enforce it. But because I know I cannot do that and because I know there is no way of making people good in the sense that I use the word, I am going to vote for the Bill.

There is an element of sordidness in the present method of the inevitable dissolution of marriage that occurs sometimes, no matter what the legal position. In the breakdown of marriage within the present system there is something that is unutterably sordid and I do not want to see it continued. That brief introduction indicates why I am going to vote for the Bill and why I am going to vote against the amendment. However, it is not because I do not cherish the ideal of marriage as, indeed, does every member of this House. When the Bill comes to the Committee stage I intend, as persuaded by the logic of argument, to consider the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). Dissolution of marriage after one year if there is mutual agreement; after 2 years if divorce is contested; and immediately for unnatural offences. But I will leave that to the Committee stage.

The main reason I have for rising is to recount a story which I think has far more impact than a long lecture about the kind of understanding that this Bill has received or which it received when first introduced. It is receiving less now. This is a true story and it deals with one of the members of the Senate committee which examined this legislation with a great deal of care. I will not indicate who the honourable senator was but he was immersed in consideration of the legislation. Those honourable members who have read the Senate debates will recognise the quality of the examination that the Bill received in the Senate. The honourable senator to whom I refer knew the Bill backwards. On one occasion he went to mass and the priest was thundering about this evil legislation. He said, in ringing tones: ‘I guess there is no one in the congregation who has even read the Bill*. So moved by his eloquence was he that he challenged again: ‘Is there anybody in the congregation who has even read the Bill? If so, would he please put his hand up’. The honourable senator who had read the Bill backwards, who had been a member of the committee and who had been through every dot and comma of the Bill, was moved to raise his hand. He was asked to come around to the presbytery afterwards. When he went around the priest said: ‘You have read the Bill?’ The honourable senator replied: ‘Yes, father, have you?’ The priest replied: ‘Not really. I meant to ‘.

My main reason for rising was to tell that story. It is a true story and it has a great moral in it which is probably worth a good deal more than the eloquence which others can command. I repeat that I want to make my position clear: I will vote for the Bill and I Will vote against the amendment. I have spelled out briefly the reasons why. Because the reasons are briefly given I would not want it to be thought that they are not sincerely held.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I do not intend to speak at length but rise to explain briefly my attitude towards the Bill as I believe this is one of the most important items of legislation to come before this House for many years. The decisions of this Parliament on it will stand for many years to come. It will be a long time before there will be another opportunity to amend our marriage laws.

I intend to vote for the passage of the Bill in the second reading stage. However, in the Committee stage of the Bill I will be examining and considering critically various aspects of it, that being the stage where amendments to the provisions of the Bill should be made.

For example, I will be examining critically those sections of the Bill dealing with maintenance, counselling and causes for dissolution of a marriage. With regard to the question of maintenance, I believe there is a need to protect adequately a woman who leaves the workforce for marriage and a family. It would be very difficult, indeed, for her to return to the work force and enjoy the same earning capacity that she would have enjoyed had she never left the work force. On the question of counselling, I believe there is a need for pre-marriage counselling facilities and for adequate counselling facilities prior to marriage breakdown. An example I could always give of that need would be the case of a young lad who appears in court from whose behaviour it is obvious that there are stresses within the marriage. There is no breakdown at that stage but surely that is the time when counselling should be given to ensure that the marriage is a success.

I am not one who believes in divorce being too easy. I am fortunate enough to come from a family where divorce has never occurred. I believe it would be incomprehensible so far as my family is concerned. Nevertheless, I am sufficiently a realist to acknowledge that marriage breakdowns are a fact of life in our community and that, therefore, one must legislate in a compassionate manner to represent all sections of the community. I believe that the children of a marriage are the most important people of all and I feel that their interests have been forgotten to a large extent during the course of this debate. I emphasise that, because although the parents may have made a mess of their lives, surely the most important thing of all is to ensure that our laws are such that the children can make a success of their marriage.

The amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) outlines some very fine principles. However, I do not propose to support it for 2 reasons. Firstly, I feel that support of it would be interpreted as opposition to divorce law reform, whereas I believe reform of the present laws is necessary. Secondly, it closes off the options on the question of causes for dissolution of marriage by its specific reference to 2 years irretrievable breakdown as a cause for dissolution.

There are many other options open to us for consideration. Some of these, of course, have already been outlined to this Parliament. I mention a couple of others which I have heard canvassed. There is the cause of irretrievable breakdown after 2 years separation with fault as a cause from 2 years to zero separation to cope with exceptions, such as non-consummation of a marriage and where there is consent that a child should be born in wedlock. Even the present Bill before the House ignores that aspect. I understand there is a 9 months gestation period and one year’s irretrievable breakdown as proposed in the Bill would not cope with such a solution. Another option which I have heard is irretrievable breakdown by petition of either party after 2 years separation; irretrievable breakdown by consent of both parties after one year’s separation; and then fault from one year to zero for exceptions such as I have already mentioned.

To sum up, I feel I should vote to allow the Bill to pass the second reading stage and then keep my options open to consider critically various sections of it in the Committee stage. As I said, the law that this Parliament finally determines will stand for many years to come. We must ensure that it embodies the most compassionate and sound provisions and reforms possible. I feel that the attitude that I have expressed is most likely to ensure this result.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I also rise in this debate to speak briefly because I realise that the time that has been taken up in considering this matter has been lengthy and that there is very little of a fresh nature that can be added to the debate. In rising, I am very mindful of the responsibility that falls to me and to other members of this Parliament in trying to formulate our attitudes to legislation such as we are faced with at the moment. Also I am rather humbled by the fact that a vote which I may cast in this debate could have an effect on thousands and thousands of marital relationships in this country. For that reason, I have given this legislation a great deal of thought and consideration before arriving at the views which I feel I must support.

In arriving at those views, I have been very much influenced by the position that the family holds in the society in which we live and by the position that the family has held over the period m which our civilisation has existed. To me, the family is the basic core unit of the society in which we have all grown up and which has existed for some centuries now. It is important that legislators do what they can to preserve that family unit. For that reason, I have looked at the legislation from the point of view of preserving and trying to strengthen that unit which I regard as being the prime and the central core of our society.

When one looks at legislation which will affect families and family life and which will have an effect on children, the relationship between parents and the interdependence of one individual on another if a relationship is to continue no longer, I believe that there must be- and it is very difficult to escape from- a situation where fault is taken into account. The proposition put forward by people that there should be no fault divorce is, I think, idealistic, as is the belief that a relationship can be severed and dissolved without taking into account the causes for so dissolving it. It seems to me that, when we are looking at this legislation, we should be asking ourselves: ‘Is this a realistic solution? Can you have a situation of no fault divorce?’ To me, the critical issue is that we cannot and that legislators have accepted that we cannot because those framing the Bill have had to take into account that fault must be considered in looking at such aspects as the maintenance and custody arrangements to be entered into following the dissolution of a marriage.

When we look at the question of no fault divorce, we must take into account these aspects. If the marriage is to be allowed to break up, this can be done in one of two ways. We can say we will be prepared to be cosmetic about it. We will be prepared to be artificial about it. What we will say is that, regardless of the reasons behind a marriage breaking down and no matter what stresses, strains or problems may exist, we will allow our legislation to contain a blanket provision which says that if a party to a marriage moves out for a year the marriage can be broken up. I do not really think that this gets to the core of the problem. I do not think that such a proposal does anything to strengthen the institution of marriage. As such, I think it follows that it does nothing to strengthen the society of which we are a part.

On the other hand, we can say we will accept the problems. We will try to solve them. We will try to get to the root of the problems which cause marriages to break down. Although that approach is a lot less pleasant and a lot more difficult to achieve, I think that it at least presents an attitude of trying to grapple with the problem and trying to be realistic and rational about it. In my view, we cannot take a simplistic approach and say that no matter what the cause of the problem is, no matter what the burdens may have been or no matter what are the reasons for seeking to dissolve a marriage, all that one needs to do is to express that problem in the form of a separation for 12 months. To me, the Bill is a healing lotion, a balm, or something of that nature which smooths over the problems which exist in marital relations.

To my mind, there are problems in the legislation between what the BUI says about the institution of marriage and what it seeks to do. Clause 43 of the BUI lists the principles which will be applied by family courts. It provides that such courts should have regard to:

  1. the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.

Clause 43 continues:

  1. the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children.

Those principles, as espoused in the BUI, are quite admirable. I would not seek to argue them. What I would argue is this: In this legislation, the need to preserve and to protect the institution of marriage and so on is not backed up. The BUI within 5 clauses- I refer to clause 48- goes on to provide that a marriage can be broken up simply by a separation for 12 months. I do not think that that is good enough. The whole question of separation is one which seems to me to be full of anomalies. A party to a marriage can move out of the marital home for a period of 12 months. At the end of that period, that party can apply to have divorce proceedings instituted. In that instance, a divorce could be granted. Alternatively, such a party can stay in the marital home. The BUI provides in clause 49:

  1. The parties to a marriage may be held to have separated and to have lived separately and apart notwithstanding that they have continued to reside in the same residence . . .

That provision, to my mind, is completely wide open to all sorts of abuse.

The questions of separation, habitation and cohabitation arise also, as I understand, in some social security legislation. In that situation, a woman who is separated from her husband, divorced or widowed and who has a man living in her house, whether she be having some relationship with him or not, finds that the Government and the Department of Social Security take the view that she should not be in receipt of a social security pension. That seems to me to be accepting one standard in one instance and a different standard in another. A woman may live with somebody and be regarded as separated in terms of divorce requirements, but she cannot live with somebody and be regarded as separated with respect to qualification for the receipt of a social security pension. That distinction seems to be a little bit difficult to follow.

The fact that a man and a woman can live together in the same home and under the Act be deemed to be living separately and apart, indicates to me that situations can and will arise where a man and a woman in agreement about divorce can say: ‘We will tell the court that we have been separated for the last 12 months. That means we can get divorced tomorrow’. I think there are problems in that area which tend to detract from what should be the philosophy behind the BUI and the philosophies expressed in clause 43.

The questions that arise about maintenance give me great cause for concern. I have a fundamental belief- I suppose an inbuilt or inbred belief- that women have a position in our society and that they are the people whom males have a responsibility to protect and provide for. Women, in accepting the responsibility of bearing the children, take upon themselves a position which must be respected by the males in our society. It seems to me to be a harsh and unreal situation that, under the provisions of clause 72 of the legislation which is presently before the House, if a relationship dissolves the woman can be expected to return to the work force and may be expected and required to change the way of life to which she has been accustomed and which she has been encouraged to adopt over a lengthy period during the marriage relationship. That is a fundamental change which should not lightly be pushed upon the women of our society.

The question of costs that arises in clause 1 1 7 is of similar concern. To my mind at least, an innocent party should not be required to be involved in the payment of costs under an action which has been brought by the other party, that party perhaps being the guilty party. It seems to me that a person who may not necessarily be in receipt of an income and who is put into a position where he or she is forced, as a result of a unilateral decision being taken by the other party to dissolve the marriage, would be put at a financial disadvantage.

The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has said: ‘That is all right, we have legal aid’. That is another argument which I reject because legal aid is not something which I as a taxpayer feel happy about supporting if it will alleviate the financial burden of one party who should be accepting the financial burden of the costs of a divorce which has been desired and instituted by that party. If a man seeks to divorce his wife on some grounds, then I believe it is his responsibility to foot the bill for that. He should not expect his wife to accept financial liability in that area, nor should he expect the general taxpayer to accept the financial responsibility for the satisfaction of his desires.

To me the Bill is an unreal Bill. It tries to cover with a blanket the problems that exist in marriages and to replace the realistic search for a solution simply by saying: ‘We will give you a period of 12 months’. One cannot get away from the situation where fault must be considered in any questions of dissolution of marriage. This Bill recognises that, and I think it is unreal to suggest that in terms of maintenance and custody it can be said: ‘You must look at fault’, but in terms of the actual grounds for the dissolution of the marriage it can be said: ‘You do not have to look at fault’. To me that is not realistic.

Some of the things which concern me about marriage and the marriage relationship and the dissolution of that relationship are matters which I do not think have been canvassed enough in the Parliament. Perhaps they have not been considered in the drafting of this legislation. I think what needs to be looked at is a situation where we remove many of the abuses that exist in a marriage dissolution. I think strongly that if a marriage has got to a position where it has broken down and there is a need for divorce, what should happen is that the divorce should be allowed to happen reasonably quickly, reasonably cheaply and without any personal- by ‘personal’ I mean in a public sense- display of the problems that have existed within that marriage relationship.

In the Committee stage we should be looking at an arrangement whereby when there is consent, the marriage should be allowed to be dissolved within perhaps the 12-months period. If there is not consent by one of the parties, if it is only a unilateral decision to dissolve the marriage, I think the period should be longer, and I suggest that the 2 years which has been mentioned is perhaps a far more reasonable period. I think, however, in situations of adultery, or of extreme cruelty, or of incest, or of some other circumstances, immediate relief should be available as there is under the existing legislation. If a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man, he is entitled to go to the Court the next day and seek to divorce her, and vice versa. If a woman comes home and finds her husband in bed with another woman, she should not be faced with a situation where the only alternative is to pack her bags and move out of the marital home for a period of 12 months and support herself for that period, if she does not wish to subject herself to the ignominy of remaining in that matrimonial home for the 12-months period with that man who has done the wrong thing by her.

I want to make clear my position on the Bill. I have given it serious and sincere consideration. I find I cannot support the Bill in its existing form. I will be voting for the amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I sincerely hope that in the Committee stage the House will be able to bring a series of more reasoned solutions to the problems which we, as sincere legislators, are trying to reach in the interests of Australian society as a whole, to provide Australian society with a system which is not harsh, but which at the same time does respect the institution of marriage, and instils something of value in our society, rather than something which detracts, as so many other things do, from the basic strength of the society in which we live.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I cannot support this Bill in its present form. I will be supporting the amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). For the purpose of the record, I shall read the amendment which I shall be supporting. It reads as follows:

That ail words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should give expression to the following principles-

that the family is the basic and stable unit of the Australian society;

that marriage should be buttressed;

that marriage should be permanent and secure;

that full and proper recognition be given to the status and rights of a woman as wife and mother;

that there should be full and proper protection of the wife and children in the event of the dissolution of a marriage;

that there is need for children to be reared and cared for by a present parent; and

that marriage should be dissolved only when a Court is satisfied on objective grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down or that the parties have lived separately and apart for not less two years ‘.

I will be supporting the amendment not in the hope that its carriage will bring about the defeat of the Bill as such but in the hope that the Bill will still be given a second reading and that worthwhile and objective amendments will then be made to it in the Committee stage of the debate. The most objectionable parts of the Bill in its present form are the dissolution and maintenance provisions, particularly those which relate to the maintenance of the children of a marriage. In my view, if the Bill becomes law in its present form marriage will become an essentially impermanent relationship. Again in my view, this Bill runs completely contrary to the concept of marriage as understood by Australian society.

Divorce proceedings should be taken as a last resort after a marriage has broken down completely despite the efforts of the parties to it to give it every chance to succeed. Clause 48 of the Family Law Bill does not provide for that. It offers an easy way out whenever there is any disagreement. The social and economic implications for Australia that will follow from the inevitable increase in the divorce rate if this Bill is enacted in its present form are completely unknown, but what is known is that no serious study has ever been made, either by the present Government or by the previous McMahon, Gorton or Holt governments, of the causes of divorce in Australia or the effects of divorce on the persons and children involved. We should be doing more to pinpoint the causes of divorce and then taking whatever positive steps we can to eliminate those causes, thereby leading to the stability of marriage. If the studies of marriage and divorce in other countries with easy divorce law are indicative of the problems we will face in our society when marriage is easy to enter into and leave, the law will be promoting and rewarding irresponsible marriages. Children need a stable and secure family environment. Clause 48 of this Bill deprives the family of security and permanence because it provides that one party to a marriage can, for whatever reason he or she thinks fit, terminate the marriage on 12 months notice.

I think it is worth pointing out that this Bill will not abolish adultery, cruelty or drunkenness in a marriage, but the right to defend a divorce suit on those or any other grounds will be abolished. This Bill does nothing to build up marriage and family life. I am afraid that the unhappiness and misery which are associated with divorce at present will remain. One of the main arguments put forward by supporters of this Bill is that it will bring dignity to divorce and will prevent the washing of dirty linen in public. They say that that will be achieved by the elimination of fault as a ground for divorce and the substitution of one ground only, namely, that the parties have lived separately and apart for no less than 12 months.

In the legislation which is the law of the land at the moment the fault grounds are usually adultery, cruelty or habitual drunkenness. The Family Law Bill certainly will eliminate fault or the conduct of parties as a ground for divorce but it will not eliminate an open examination of the conduct of the parties in what are the most heartrending results of a divorce- the custody of the children of the marriage and access to them by either partner. Clause 64 ( 1 ) of the Bill requires that, in regard to custody or guardianship of or access to a child of a marriage, the court shall regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. Surely the conduct of the parties during the marriage would have to be taken into account in determining that- and rightly so. I am afraid that the dirty linen will still be washed and that the conduct of the parties will still be bared.

Another objectionable feature of the Bill is the clauses which relate to maintenance. Clause 72 purports to make equal in their claims against each other in relation to maintenance 2 personsa husband and his wife- who are simply not equal. To say that husbands and wives, as a general proposition, have the same litigious capabilities is arrant nonsense. I have said that for these reasons: By and large, the husband controls the money and has a greater share of the money. He has a greater sense of security because he works and has that income-earning capacity. The wife has the diversion, if one can call it that, of caring for the children of the marriage. The wife’s economic future is in somebody else’s hands. She is more dependent upon outside help. Because of the domestic demands made upon her by the children of the marriage, she has less time and less energy to devote to her own personal causes.

Clause 72, as presently contained in the Family Law Bill, can have this effect: A man and woman many. When they marry they, either expressly or impliedly, agree that the husband will do the work or the job he wishes to do- by and large the husband has that choice- and that the wife and mother will adopt as her career the vocation of a wife and mother. Time marches on and they each follow their chosen careers. Then the husband unilaterally decides that the wife will have to change her chosen career. She is then immediately on the defensive, trying- I might add at her own cost- not to be forced into a career that she never wanted in the first place, that she does not want now and that she never will want. The wife then has the task of trying to convince a court that she should not be thrown out to work instead of the husband having the task of showing why she should be thrown out to work. As a matter of simple elementary justice, its effluvia is nauseating.

Clause 75, which provides the criteria under which maintenance is determined, is shockingly drafted. Its provisions, assuming that one can understand them, are tortuous. They will be expensive by litigation, they will create injustice and distress and, even when they are understood, they will not be acceptable. As the authorities now stand, in every case all the sub-clauses of clause 75 will have to be considered, even if subsequently they are proved to have little or no relevance to the case at issue. One of the most objectionable sub-clauses of clause 75 is sub-clause (e), which provides that the court shall take into account the responsibilities of either party to support any other person. What does ‘responsibilities’ mean? Does it mean legal responsibilities or moral responsibilities that are voluntarily assumed- for example, a de facto relationship? Imagine how carried away by the justice of it all a wife will be when her maintenance is reduced because her husband finds that he has a responsibility to support a de facto- a lady who might find herself to be pregnant! The fact that the husband has committed adultery is, by this Bill, of no consequence and no significance and, of itself, gives the wife no remedy. But the fact that as a result of such adultery the lady in question is pregnant may well mean that the wife must accept less maintenance for herself and her children. I can just hear the wife bursting into peals of hysterical joy when she finds this out.

Another iniquitous provision of the Bill is that which relates to the costs of litigating a divorce. The proposal that each party to the divorce pay his or her own costs may appear on the surface to be based on a principle of” equality but in fact it discriminates against women. The burden falls unequally on men and women, on husbands and wives. Many women do not work outside the home and depend on their husbands for any money that they get. I would say that this would be true in the majority of cases. Women in this position are particularly vulnerable to an order for costs. Some women are engaged in industry and work both in the home and out of it. In a divorce situation they may have to squander slender hard-earned savings or child endowment to pay lawyers.

This legislation is bad legislation because it gives the presiding judge no discretion in fixing costs although conditions of the litigation or conditions of the parties may warrant some other order. Justice demands a fair go for all citizens. It is not justice that the good wife who has done nothing to end the marriage, who has been deserted by her husband for another woman and who wants to contest the divorce or contest custody of children should have to pay her own costs even if she wins. There are many instances in court hearings where one party wins on one issue but loses on one or more issues. In the name of equality is the court to be powerless to consider each case on its merits? I cannot recall any other laws of a civil nature, outside the fair rents courts, where each party has to pay his or her own costs regardless of the issues which are being litigated or the result of that litigation. In my view clause 1 1 7 in its present form should not be passed. Costs should be left in the hands of the judge hearing the case.

In conclusion I would like to read an extract from one of the many letters which I have received in regard to the Family Law Bill. The letter, which was written by a lady, in part states:

I believe there should be some reform regarding divorce but I also most firmly believe that the rights of children and marriage, if we are to continue living under our present socio-economic structure, must be protected and after perusal and deliberation I have reached the conclusion that this Bill will only undermine our society, irrespective of one ‘s religious persuasion.

I would venture the suggestion that perhaps some member, if he really has the good of the people at heart, will exercise his faculties by presenting a Bill making marriage much harder to get into- thereby stopping the cart before the horse bolts . . .

I most heartily agree with these sentiments.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I listened with great interest to the speech of my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin). I find some of his assumptions very interesting. I would like to make some comments about them to give some continuity to this debate. But before I do that I want to say a word or two about the present position and give my interpretation of the general view of Australians in relation to existing laws that we now describe with the modern term of ‘ family law legislation ‘.

When I first came into this Parliament it was generally accepted that this type of legislation now before us was properly within the jurisdiction of the States. There was some talk in 1956 or 1 957 about the need for uniform laws on divorce to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia so that people living in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales or any other State would be subject to a coherent standard and law which would apply evenly in all the States. This concept probably would not have been beyond the ken of the great legal giants at the time of Federation- men like Edmund Barton and Deakin and others. But it does appear that originally it was the view of the fathers of the Australian Federation, the people who set up the Constitution of Australia, that this type of law ought to be the responsibility of the States.

The first recollection I have of the issues being raised in the House of Representatives was when Mr Percy Joske. became the member for Balaclava after Sir Thomas White left the Parliament. It was widely known within the House of Representatives that Mr Joske was one of Australia’s experts in the field of divorce law. He had in fact written textbooks which I understand were the basis of teaching in the universities of Australia. A private member’s Bill proposed by Mr Joske came in and out of the House of Representatives during a period of 12 months or more. There was discussion about it. Eventually, because of the reaction within the community which was political as well as social, not very much was done.

Honourable members will remember that in due course we moved to Commonwealth legislation when Sir Garfield Barwick took the place of Sir Howard Beale in this place. Legislation was introduced which was to be effective in all States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia and which therefore, within the terms of the Constitution, took precedence over State legislation. The legislation which has been introduced by the Labor Government will, of course, if it is passed and becomes law, take precedence over all previous legislation and have a corresponding effect throughout the States. In the light of this I feel it is reasonable to look at the laws that will be superseded and at the circumstances which exist at present in the various States and to establish whether or not it is a valid contention that most thinking Australians would desire reform.

Most of us are aware of the fact that the Press on many occasions has field days for sensationalism when reporting divorce cases. Generally the cases that the Press reports are sordid and sensational, relating to wealthy people, people who are socially prominent. The newspaper articles usually refer to the troubles of these people. One could gain the impression that the average reader of these articles would get some satisfaction from reading about the discomfort and misery that was being suffered by a particular family.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr GRAHAM:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I had referred to the history of the matrimonial clauses legislation during the last 20 years in the House of Representatives. I turn now to the amendment and the clauses of the Bill. The amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) indicates that the House is of the opinion that the Bill should give expression to certain principles. It goes on to recite those principles, beginning with the principle that the family is the basic and stable unit of the Australian society; secondly, that marriage should be buttressed; thirdly, that marriage should be permanent and secure. Bearing in mind the solemn intention and sincerity of the Minister who has put this amendment, on studying the Bill I find in clause 43 the established principles to be applied by the courts. Clause 43 states:

The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to-

the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life;

the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children;

As one goes through the amendment it would seem that the Bill sets out to protect those principles that have been enunciated by the people who are supporting the amendment.

When I referred to the present position under the Matrimonial Causes Act, I thought that the debate in the House had been conducted at a level that was largely to do with matters of principle and that there had not been much reference to what has been going on in the divorce courts of Australia, apart from a fascinating speech by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). Although I will not go into that in detail, with great respect to him, I would have thought that reference to the facts may have been of some assistance in this debate. I am told that about 90 per cent of applications for divorce are undefended. That leads me to believe that the practical fact of the matter is that in our society when people decide that they are going to have a divorce they simply break up the marriage and that is the end of it. If they are well-to-do people, they are probably not desperately concerned about financial arrangements. If they are people worthy of having been married in the first place and if they are worthy, responsible citizens, then they would make appropriate arrangements for their children. If they are persons who will disregard entirely the rights of their children and if it is the husband who is at fault, I would venture the view that the wife is well rid of the wretch and the sooner she can get separated from him the better and any talk of limiting the separation period before a divorce may be obtained to 12 months or 12 days is really superficial comment.

Among the 10 per cent of divorces which are defended there are no doubt many complicated cases. This Bill sets out to provide for some evenhanded, fair situation within which the court will exercise its jurisdiction and have regard to the matters to which I have referred. So a great deal must depend upon the circumstances as they exist at the time in the particular case in the court. For that reason it seems to me that we want to avoid the current situation in which an enormous number of spouses, having decided to fracture a marriage, go off, change their name, ignore calls for maintenance and simply desert their responsibilities entirely. As I have said, people who do this sort of thing can barely expect to be regarded as highly responsible people who had a marriage that needed protection, because I would have thought that they have been revealed as people with no sense of responsibility and people who have ignored their duty. I have virtually no sympathy for them.

In view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) laid so much emphasis upon the work of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby), in dealing with the history of this legislation it is fair and reasonable to point out that Mr Raymond Watson, Q.C., who is a distinguished lawyer in the divorce jurisdiction, has played a considerable part in the preparation of this legislation. It is the view of most of the lawyers to whom I have spoken that the effect of this legislation will be to cut down the financial impact on people in the majority of cases. If that is the case- looking at the clauses of the BUI which relates to cost, one would hope that it would be- then this will be a good thing, because one of the bad aspects of our existing legislation is the impact of the costs upon people who go through the unfortunate process of divorce. As I understand it, people have been reduced to poverty or reduced substantially in wealth as a result of the current divorce laws. One can have sympathy for people when they do not deserve to be treated in this way. One would hope that within the family court system as it is set out in this Bill this situation will be avoided in a substantial number of cases.

I do not believe that legislation in this Parliament or in any other Parliament can substantially protect a marriage that is doomed to failure. I think the truth of the matter is that people have to face up to their responsibilities. If it is a grievous misfortune of life for a young woman to marry a man who turns out to be an irresponsible person, then she will suffer this misfortune no matter what, and I cannot see how any legislation is going to protect and buttress her position. As I said before, if the truth were admitted and faced, in many cases it would probably be a good thing if she got rid of the man as quickly as possible in the hope that her life may be better in the future. As I have said, I believe that the clauses of this Bill relating to publicity are in the best interests of our society. Frankly, I do not think there is a great deal of merit in having kiddies subjected to the types of Press reports which one sees from time to time. Generally they relate to the landed aristocracy in the United Kingdom or in Europe, or perhaps to people of social fame or prominence. It appears to me that the media, revered as it might be, derives great pleasure in revealing these people to be a sordid group of Bacchanalians or something like that, people who live out lives of depravity.

In this respect the Bill is an advancement and the Press might reasonably accept the concept that these are private matters. People should have the right to go through this unfortunate, sad, depressing, dismal business of divorce- if they have to go through it- with a maximum degree of privacy and the retention of such dignity as they may possibly hope to retain in the circumstances. Having looked at these clauses and given a lot of thought to this matter, I have come to the conclusion that I will support the Bill. I will not support the amendment simply because I believe that the Bill does largely what the amendment expresses. It puts upon the courts and the people responsible for running those courts the main responsibility for implementing the Bill and for making the whole system work in the interests of the people of our country.

In conclusion I make this comment: Side by side with my colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate I have been receiving an enormous number of letters from various people and associations indicating that if I vote one way they will not be voting for me at the next election. Others have indicated that if I vote the other way they will not be voting for me at that election. As I am not altogether a genius in the field of mathematics, I have lost count. I am therefore relying upon a future rearrangement of boundaries, or something like that, to make sure that the component is kept at a relative level. But I am not wholly concerned about the matter. I hold the view that many people who write these letters are quite ill informed about the way in which the Parliament works. I have yet to meet anyone in this place who would have his mind, his honour and his intellectual integrity suborned in that base manner.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I rise to speak in the debate on the Family Law Bill and to state a view which I would have been able to express in the Committee stage, but mostly to give an expression of opinion because this is a matter of public controversy. All of us have received letters of the kind the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) has mentioned. I also welcome this opportunity to speak because when we had earlier debates on what are referred to as conscience matters- that is, the debate on the Bill relating to abortion about a year ago and on a motion relating to the law in respect of honosexual activities- on both occasions I was not afforded an opportunity to speak. More than that, a lot of people were not afforded the opportunity of moving amendments. When it came to a vote, particularly on the second matter, people were forced to vote in a way which was not really in accordance with their views, but they were left without any options and they had to take the course of voting for what was offered in the motion. For that reason a lot of honourable members voted in a manner in which they would not normally vote. So I welcome the opportunity to be able to say a few things about the Bill.

Most of the subject matter of the Bill has been canvassed pretty well to date. I do not intend to bore the House with a resume of what the other 20 or 30 speakers have said. Suffice to say that the law does not keep a marriage together. Only the decency of people and their desire to have happiness together can do that. In the final analysis, if the matter ends up in the divorce court I believe that the opportunities for reconciliation at that time are fairly dismal. The real time to do something about divorce or about marriage breakdown is long before divorce proceedings take place. In that circumstance we as legislators are left to haggle over which concept the law should espouse basically to deal with a washup position, picking up the pieces after a marriage has failed.

I believe there is a lot of merit in the basic thrust of clause 48 which contains the central meaning of the Bill. But I believe there are a lot of inadequacies in the Bill. One of these inadequacies is that these if no provision for instant divorce which is a weakness when compared with the present position. One can presently obtain an instant divorce for the nonconsummation of the marriage, cruelty and a number of other reasons. A woman or a man is able to terminate the marriage almost instantly. Under this Bill one cannot. However I would be prepared to vote for the motion for the. second reading of the Bill. I would like to seek to amend it in the Committee stage along the terms of the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). I shall read some of the details of his proposed amendment because I believe it covers what I and I think a lot of other honourable members believe the Bill should provide. The honourable member has stated:

Subject to sub-section (3), in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that-

having regard to the behaviour of the parties the marriage has in fact broken down irretrievably.

In other words, the question of behaviour comes in and an instant divorce could be given if the court so decided. The proposed amendment continues:

  1. the parties separated and thereafter live separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 24 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for dissolution of marriage.

So if one person wants to terminate the marriage and if they live apart for 24 months the marriage can be terminated. The honourable member then proposes:

The court shall not grant a decree based on section 48 (2) (a) where the only behaviour relied upon is lack of cohabitation.

This is the central thrust of section 48. It provides that the only reason is irretrievable breakdown and the fact that the parties lived apart. So the proposal of the honourable member for Wentworth says 2 things. He says that there should be objectivity in respect of behaviour to preserve the present position of instant divorce or divorce on grounds, and the second position of a divorce granted after 24 months where the parties have lived separately and apart. I suggest a third provision which could perhaps read something like this:

A continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of applications by both parties for dissolution of the marriage.

That would preserve the 12 months concept for 2 people who do not have children or property where they can both file an application and, within 12 months, a divorce would be granted. That amendment would give to some of the supporters of clause 48 the thrust of that and it would preserve the benefits which are given under the existing law. I believe that the proposed amendment suggested by the honourable member for Wentworth, particularly paragraph (a), is good. I believe that the Bill in its present form is inadequate. I am not inclined to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lang, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), on the basis that in paragraph (g) it states:

That marriage should be dissolved only when a Court is satisfied on objective grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down or that the parties have lived separately and apart for not less than 2 years.

I think that what I have outlined goes one step further. Before paragraph (g) there is some philosophical verbiage in the first part of the amendment which I feel is superfluous to the matter in question. Therefore I am inclined to support the proposition of the honourable member for Wentworth if he amends it in the manner I have suggested.

Without wishing to be offensive to anyone, I suggest that the Bill in its present form is pretty much a playboy’s Bill and does not pay much concern at all to the welfare of women. I believe that many supporters of the Bill are people who do not want to have their conduct exposed and who never want to be named as co-respondents in divorce proceedings. Today I received an hysterical letter from a group in my electorate. It is supposed to be a reasoned group. I cannot understand some of the letters that we members have received about this Bill. The only explanation I can give for them is that self-interest is involved. Therefore we should look past it. The weakness of clause 48 is that it attempts to enshrine in the law a misnomer. This matter has been canvassed in the House before. The clause asserts that the real reason for the breakdown is the fact that people live apart. Obviously, the real reason they live apart is something else, such as drunkenness, cruelty, or adultery. What we should be talking about in the law is the real reasons and not some misnomer which clause 48 seeks to enshrine in the Bill. The weakness of it is that, if a husband so desires, he can extinguish the marriage without any exposure of his own behaviour and he can extinguish his wife’s right to maintenance. Under the present law she can be maintained in her old age, but the weakness of this Bill is that she will not receive maintenance if she is able to support herself.

There should be some objectivity. Paragraph (a) of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Wentworth gives that. It says ‘having regard to the behaviour of the parties’. Certainly the question of behaviour must be looked at when one is also talking about custody. If a child is to be given to one parent or another, surely the behaviour of the parents must be looked at. If a court is to award custody of a child to a parent, the behaviour of the parents must be taken into account. In respect of injunctions against cruelty or protection sought by a wife, or perhaps by a husband, the behaviour must be looked at. The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his speech about a month ago gave some facts. He said that in New South Wales in 1972 there were 5069 convictions for assaults between husbands and wives. He went on to say that there were probably another 20 000 that were never mentioned. So the question of cruelty does arise. In injunction proceedings the behaviour must be taken into account.

The proponents of the Bill say that if people go to court under clause 48 of the Bill the concept of fault- it is a question of behaviour, not faultdoes not arise. If there is a problem at home, perhaps involving cruelty, and a woman goes to court to obtain an injunction to restrain her husband she will have to go to court a number of times and the question of behaviour will be raised. In cases involving the custody of children and maintenance the question of behaviour must be looked at. If a good, conscientious woman wants to preserve a marriage, under the Bill she is dependent on the good will or the ill will of her husband. If he chooses to desert her, he can divorce her. Clause 72 says that a party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party to the extent that the first mentioned party is reasonably able to do so if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately. It goes on to speak about other things , but that is the basic meaning of it. If a woman is able to care for herself she is on her own. I think that when maintenance is considered, particularly in respect of children, the question of the behaviour of both parents must come into consideration, as must the fact that a woman may have given up her profession to be a faithful and conscientious wife. She may be cast aside and her profession lost. So in many respects behaviour will be considered in court- so why should it not be considered in the grounds for divorce in the first circumstances.

Today I received a letter from a women’s group urging me to support the Bill in its present form but, on the question of maintenance, urging me to consider an amendment to the Social Services Act to dispense with the 6 weeks waiting period for social services in the event that a husband turfs his wife out of their house. If that is not propping up the playboy concept, I do not know what is. It is not espousing the interests of women today to say of a conscientious woman who is trying to preserve a marriage and is doing the right thing by her husband and family that because her husband does not want her companionship any longer and she is forced from the house she must go to the Government and receive social services. The amount probably would not maintain her at the standard of living she had before. It would be demeaning for her to go and collect social services. It is an encumbrance on the Government, but it should remain an encumbrance on the man who undertook the responsibility of the marriage. I think that such a suggestion as I have had put to me is a lot of hogwash. It is time many of these trendy women’s groups had a good look at themselves. It is curious that in the House of Representatives, where there is only one woman member, it falls to the lot of most male members of the House to protect women’s rights against the wishes of many women’s organisations.

I believe that it is a very serious responsibility that has been placed upon us. Marriage is the very basis of the family and it has been the motivation of the bread winners in the families which has kept our society as we know it today going. The basic element of our society is the family. We want to preserve marriages. What we have to look at here is the law regarding the dissolution or the wash-up of a marriage. I believe that there should be no retrogression beyond the current position in the law. The amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Wentworth satisfies a number of wishes and objections. It looks at behaviour. It allows instant divorce. It gives divorce after 2 years if one party decides to separate from the other. Under the additional proposal which I suggested, if both parties without children make applications conjointly by consent, without contest they should be granted a divorce within 12 months. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) mentioned his support for this before I rose to speak. We share the same view. I think it is a suggestion which could defuse any antagonism from proponents of the Bill. If that were made an appendage to the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Wentworth, I think it could be successful. I would be voting for it.

I do not say that there is not a lot of good will on the part of the proponents of the Bill. Of course there is. They want to change the law in the best interests of people. But I think though that their logic has erred in many places. As I said at the start, I believe that a lot of self-interest is involved when a matter like this arises, perhaps not from honourable members, but from supporters of the Bill. Many people do not want their behaviour scrutinised. They do not want to be named as co-respondents in divorce proceedings. They want to enshrine in the law that the reason for the dissolution of the marriage is that 2 people have lived apart. That is nonsense. People live apart for reasons. The law must look at the real reasons and provide for divorce in respect of them. The law must look after the parties who conscientiously have tried to preserve a marriage. Surely that is the least we can do in respect of this Bill.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-I do not want to detain the House for long; but I think it is proper that, as the Government has allowed more than 60 speakers to take part in the second reading debate, most of us should let our electorates know simply the view we take. I commend the Government for allowing what is frankly a Committee Bill to proceed in the second reading stage for this length of time. I hope, as no doubt the Government hopes, that the debate will not have to be gagged. It was a pretty cohesive and simplistic Bill that came to us from the other place. I fear that by the time the Committee stage is completed we might not have as cohesive and, depending how one views it, sensible a document as came into this House.

Whilst saying that, let me state with some regret that I will not be supporting the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I find it slightly illogical. It says:

The House is of the opinion that the Bill should give expression to the following principles:

Then it says that ‘the family is the basic and stable unit of Australian society’. At least 90 per cent of members of this House probably would agree completely with that principle. But having stated that marriage should be permanent and secure it is then illogical to put forward the principle that marriage should be dissolved after only 2 years separation. I find this to be illogical if principles are to be taken as principles. To my regret- I say that because there is so much good in the wording of the amendment- I will not be supporting it.

I regard the Bill primarily as being a Bill for discussion in Committee. In spite of the number of speakers who have spoken in the second reading debate, obviously the cut and thrust of debate will emerge at that stage. At that stage the House has to make up its mind precisely in what form the Bill will become law. I mention in passing a point that other speakers have already expounded that in this day and age marriage cannot be saved by legislative coercion. I believe that we have to accept our responsibility as members of Parliament. On the one hand our obvious need is to listen to community views, take note of letters and views that are addressed to us and then make up our minds where we stand. Each individual member of Parliament has to make his own judgment and vote accordingly. I think that is the proper way and the only way the Parliament can be effective, not only in relation to this issue but also the hundreds of other issues that come before it. We are judged by our performance and our performance should be dictated by our own personal judgment as far as is reasonably possible. I intend to take that course in regard to this Bill.

As other honourable members have said, this Bill has caused more comment than most other Bills presented to the House in recent times. It has opened up areas in which people have forcibly expressed their views according to their beliefs and principles. In some cases the presentation of those views has been organised. I see little wrong with that. Many other members of Parliament, apart from myself, will have received deputations from various clergymen and their adherents. I found these deputations to be knowledgeable about the Bill. Perhaps this is contrary to the story told by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly). They were knowledgeable in their understanding of the Bill and in many cases- I say this with regret- they had a better understanding of modern society and its problems than one or two of the speakers on this Bill that we have heard in the House over the last 2 months. Principally their concern has been with improper preparation for marriage and lack of seriousness about marriage before 2 young people get together. They are concerned, as I am, about clause 48 of the Bill. Although I had trouble following the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who seemed to think that the Bill contained all the elements for a playboy’s dream on the one hand, and on the other hand he said that he would support the

Bill, I find myself backing precisely what he said. Many of us on this side of the House, in an issue in which party politics does not apply, had been attracted to the view, prior to the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) speaking, that there were cases where immediate application for divorce should apply. As the honourable member for Blaxland suggested, in cases of incest, the discovery of homosexuality on a honeymoon, cases of drunken beatings of children and other such matters I think it is proper that the application for divorce should be allowed immediately in those circumstances. Likewise, I would stick by the principle of a one-year waiting period prior to the granting of divorce applications by consent. I also think marginally that it is proper in cases of unilateral divorce applications that the parties should have to wait for a 2-year period. I do not think that we will be achieving much by following that latter course but it is one I intend to adopt when the amendment concerned comes before the House.

I would like to refer briefly to 2 other matters that I do not think have been touched on yet during the course of the debate. Really, that is the only reason I am on my feet to speak in this debate this afternoon.

Firstly, I do not approve of one amendment made in the other place to the Bill as we find it before this House. I refer to clause 41a. I will be voting according to the terms of the clause in the original Bill. I anticipate that the Government might be moving an amendment along those lines. I refer to the Senate’s insistence on mentioning the establishment of State family courts. That is not a simple provision. I will go into that in more detail in the Committee stage. I am frightened that it will lead to a hotch-potch situation of joint control which will be unworkable and lacking in uniformity of approach. I see nothing but good in relation to the Government’s original ideas in this matter, namely, that there should be a Federal family court established in each State or at other places considered necessary. For a variety of reasons- I will give more detail of them later- I will support that proposition.

The other thing I would like to say, because I think it needs saying, is this: I admire the simplicity of approach by the former Senator Murphy to this legislation and the removal of the fault clauses. All of us have found in the past many individual instances in which the way they have operated has been quite archaic. What I am not so sure about is how this BUI can be amended satisfactorily to distinguish between different degrees of divorce. I think that this Parliament should consider that. I think that it is quite obvious to all honourable members that there is a much more valid reason for a divorce when 2 people, having brought up their children, they having left the family nest, then decide that they have struggled on for some years under difficulties and want a divorce. Let us compare that with precisely the same category of those young people who marry and after a year or so find that they are incompatible. In both cases I maintain that there should be a proper short period of time prior to a divorce being granted. I think that the House should try to distinguish between those people who have been married for 10 years and perhaps have a family of 5 children and the other cases that I have mentioned. This is a very different situation from the other 2 situations I have described. If there is any possibility- I cannot perceive any- within the framework of this Bill, short of incest cases and short of beating up of children and wives; this situation should be looked at by the House as being in a much more difficult category of divorce than the other two extremes I have already explained.

I think that there is one ameliorating circumstance in this Bill. I regard it as making better counselling facilities available to try to help the marriage in that third category I have mentioned. In other words, so far as I can see, better counselling services are provided under this Bill for a young couple with several young children than were provided in the previous legislation. I think that governments should recognise that it is not desirable in the community of the family interests to make divorce in that case as easy as this Bill does. Yet on the other hand we have a situation in which the counselling provisions could be much more effective under this Bill.

Those are the only 2 points I wish to make. I say once again I will support the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I look forward to dealing with this Bill in the Committee stage as soon as is reasonably possible so that we can come to grips with some of the problems that exercise my mind and the minds of other honourable members. I hope we can obtain some result for the benefit of people generally.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I want to make one or two points. I have been inspired to enlarge on some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). There are 2 elements of the Family Law Bill that most interest me. On the one side I ask: How quickly or how easily can a marriage be terminated? I do not want to go over all the things that have been said about the family being the bulwark of our nation. Those who do not accept that fact are not paying very much recognition to the salient point in the life of any nation.

I propose to support the amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) on the basis of 2 considerations. The Bill as it stands makes marriage so much easier to dissolve. I shall have no more to say about that because thousands of words have been spoken on it in this House. But the one subject on which I would like to speak at some greater length is that of the woman involved. The honourable member for Blaxland probably summed up the general realistic situation that arises in most marriages which begin to crumble. It is usually the man who begins to play up. Let us face it. There would not be a member of this House- I will include the senators, though some of them are a little aged for that sort of caper- who would not admit that it is the male in any company who is likely to start playing around a little. That is how the situation begins to build up. I do not know that the senators come quite so close to this sort of thing, but every day every member of the House of Representatives has people coming in, more particularly women, seeking assistance. In most cases they present a story of rather stark tragedy. I do not want to get dramatic about this but it is usually a situation where a woman, usually a fairly young woman, is left with two or three children and suddenly finds that she has to do a number of things. I think the most difficult task is to try to bring into that atmosphere some compensation for the fact that the father is no longer there. I think this emotional demand on a woman is probably more critical than any other of the considerations involved. I go along with the honourable member for Blaxland when he, using the more accepted term, referred to the playboy aspect of this matter.

I think every desperate attempt should be made to maintain the family unit. This brings one back inevitably to the woman of the house. It is strength of character, her almost third dimensional attitude towards sustaining the marriage that keeps the family operating as an identity. That is the most dramatic and important element in the whole question. In my judgment and evaluation, after listening to the debate and studying the Bill, I think that without the amendment as moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation the woman would find herself in a pretty difficult situation.

I agree with two or three speakers who today brought out the point that what is happening in the world is that some women are anxious to become identified with way-out attitudes and with some of the very strange and odd things that are happening and twisting this world beyond recognition, and that we slavishly follow other countries. We had a magnificent country with the highest possible standards and ideals until the media began extracting from some of these strange and odd countries new standards or substandards and we found many women’s organisations beginning to espouse them. It is quite extraordinary and unbelievable. I cannot help but believe that they are not giving sufficient thought to trying to persuade us in this House to pass a Bill, without the necessary amendments, that would undoubtedly and inevitably affect their own womenfolk and put on them an almost unendurable agony of existence. How many women re-marry? How many women in Australia are still trying to work out how they are to sustain their children and educate them during an agonising ordeal? That one element alone should persuade any member of this House to vote for the commendable amendment moved by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stewart’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 80

NOES: 41

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I move:

Mr Speaker, I know; this is evident from the noise on my left at the moment, and perhaps it is appropriate that it is on my left- that one of the criticisms of this motion will be that this is a delaying tactic, that the Bill has been debated, that a great deal of time has been spent at the second reading stage, that various other considerations have been given to the Bill, and that therefore a motion such as this should not be moved. It will be recalled that I was the person who moved for the postponement of the debate from last year until the sittings of the House this year. Irrespective of anything that may be said in criticism of this motion, I feel that a matter of such importance should be referred ro a select committee. I believe that such action would not delay the Bill any more than it would be delayed in the normal course in going through the Committee stage and having amendments considered.

I do not want to go over again the ground that was covered during the second reading debate, nor the ground that was covered by the Senate Select Committee and during the debate in the Senate, but one thing that has become evident to everybody in all the debates relating to this matter is that there is, first of all, a degree of confusion in the minds of those who have been debating the Bill relating to some of the factors of the legislation. I said in my speech in the second reading debate that I appreciated the fact that there should be reform in the divorce situation and that legislation bringing about reform should be given consideration. But let us have a look at this. This Bill has now passed the second reading stage. It will go into Committee, during which time many and varied amendments will be moved. If my memory serves me correctly, there are something like 140 amendments mooted at this stage. I am sure that there will be more than that. Once the House of Representatives has discussed the Bill in the Committee stage and all the amendments have been considered and either accepted or rejected, then I anticipate that the Bill will go through to the Senate. It will then be given further consideration in the Senate, where I would anticipate that there would be further amendments moved. One might almost have an appreciation of the fact that this legislation could go backwards and forwards between the Senate and the House of Representatives for some considerable period of time. Let us also face the fact that, while this is a non-party measure, there has been a certain amount of emotional content in the debate. 1 think that this is understandable.

It has been said that there has been much pressure brought to bear upon members from outside sources. I would think that in the majority of cases members in this House are capable and competent enough to give consideration to legislation and decide honestly and sincerely what they feel is in the best interests of the people of Australia. They would take into consideration, of course, certain representations and comments that have been made from outside. Surely the only thing that would decide the attitude of a member in relation to any legislation would not be representation that is brought to bear upon him from outside. If that were the situation of a member in this House, I would say that the member was not fulfilling his responsibilities as a member of the Australian Parliament.

I refute the argument that this motion is merely a delaying tactic and will delay the Bill. I do not believe it will delay the Bill any further than the considerations that are before us at the moment in relation to the passage of the Bill. I believe that in the calm of a select committee, where members will sit down literally away from the political atmosphere, more reason and more logic could be presented. I would hope that possibly a more rational piece of legislation would be presented than the legislation which we are considering at this particular stage. It is for that reason that I have moved that this Bill be referred to a select committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

- Mr Speaker, I second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I oppose the motion and I think I do so- I hope I do so- with the support of most honourable members. This is, indeed, a very controversial Bill. It is a Bill that strikes deeply into matters on which honourable members have strong feelings. This has been evidenced by the history of the Bill and I remind honourable members of the time that has been devoted to it already. Without going into the history of divorce law reform in this country, one can say that it began in its present form as early as December 1971- that is a long, long while ago- when Senator Murphy, as he then was, moved in the Senate for the establishment of a standing committee to consider this problem. This led to advertisements being inserted in national papers which led to an enormous public debate throughout the whole of the country. We are now living through this public debate and have lived through it for some little time. The Senate committee concerned had very detailed discussions. However, I remind honourable members that this did not reduce the differences of opinion in the Senate that exist on a subject of this kind because people feel so strongly about their opinions that in the long run, the issue will not be resolved by a standing or select committee. That committee presented its report which led to proper, fine and magnificent debate in the Senate- perhaps one of the finest debates the Senate has had. It was even acknowledged as such by people who took a view different from the majority view in the Senate. The Bill then came to us from the Senate in its present form.

It is now April 1975. The Bill was introduced into our House in December 1 974, 4 months ago.

The public debate has continued. There has been no gag and no restriction on debate by the Government or by any private member. Some 64 speakers have spoken on the subject covering every possible point of view. This afternoon we saw the situation reached when, without any motion that the question be put, the last speaker sat down and the question was quite properly put. 1 put it to honourable members that surely the stage has now been reached for them to go into a Committee of the Whole where the entire question can be resolved in the traditional way in which it is resolved in the House of Representatives. I put it to honourable members that the delay that has taken place because of the nature of the subject- it is a matter on which people form very strong views- indicates that there will not be any solution reached in a select committee. Even though not intended by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), in effect it will be reason for delay. There are a lot of people watching us at this moment and watching us very closely to see whether we make a mockery of trying to solve this very difficult legal and social problem. The only way to solve this difficult legal and social problem is in a Committee of the Whole of this House of Representatives. That is the stage we have reached.

I put it to honourable members, knowing that there is a free vote on this Bill, that we should not demean ourselves by just passing the buckpassing the legislation on to some other group of people who, in themselves, will be divided. They are not matters of technique that divide honourable members nor matters concerning a particular form of machinery. In many ways, they are matters of basic philosophy. In the long run- we cannot run away from it- honourable members of this House have to grasp the nettle. This House, all 127 members- or at least of all those who care to vote- must vote on the issue because it really means that every man must stand up and be counted. For some this will be difficult but at the same time the problem will not be resolved by sending it to a committee where it will be buried and we will all be made to look not only silly but also cowards.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-Mr Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I move, with great delight:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Your love of your colleague is well shown.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is: ‘That the Bill be referred to a select committee’. I think the noes have it. Is a division required? No division is required. (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-If honourable members want to divide they ought to make that quite clear. One honourable member indicated he required a division but it requires the support of 2 honourable members. Is a division required?

Mr Lucock:

– I require a division, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would require more than Mr Lucock to call for a division.

Mr Jarman:

– I require a division, Mr Speaker.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 18

NOES: 101

Majority……. 83

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Committee

Clause1 (Short Title).

Progress reported.

page 1394

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:

Sales Tax Bills (Nos. 1 to 9) 1975.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1975.

page 1394

REFRIGERATION COMPRESSORS BOUNTY BILL 1974

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 1394

AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 1394

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 8 April.

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In the definition of ‘Commissioner’ omit ‘the appointment of officers or the engagement of employees, the receipt, holding or payment of moneys or the acquisition, holding or disposal of other property’, substitute ‘the acquisition, holding or disposal of property ‘.

Perhaps to assist my friend, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), I should explain to him that the reason for this amendment is that the Government has decided, as I think he would know, that the staff of the Commissioner is to be employed under the Public Service Act, and it will not be necessary for separate financial arrangements to be maintained by the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner will retain his status as an independent statutory authority. It is consistent with the Government’s view that there should be a rational system in Government agencies of this sort from the point of view of employment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8.

  1. This Part does not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences between Australian citizens and persons who are not Australian citizens.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move:

Omit sub-clause ( 3 ).

This amendment aims to omit sub-clause (3) from clause 8. Existing sub-clause (3) provides that Part II of the Act which prohibits racial discrimination, shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences between Australian citizens and persons who are not Australian citizens. The Opposition does not believe that persons living in this country who are not legally Australian citizens should not be disentitled to the benefit which it is sought to give to

Australian citizens under this Act. We can see no good reason why an act of discrimination against a person living in Australia who is not a naturalised Australian citizen should not attract the same provisions as acts of discrimination against persons who are Australian citizens. We can see no good reason why this distinction should be made by this legislation.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government is happy to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 11.

It is unlawful for a person-

  1. to refuse to allow another person access to or use of any place or vehicle that members of the public are entitled or allowed to enter or use, or to refuse to allow another person access to or use of any such place or vehicle except on less favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to which he would otherwise allow access to or use of that place or vehicle;
  2. to refuse to allow another person use of any facilities in any such place or vehicle that are available to members of the public, or to refuse to allow another person use of any such facilities except on less favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to which he would otherwise allow use of those facilities; or
  3. to require another person to leave or cease to use any such place or vehicle or any such facilities, by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In paragraph (a) after ‘ are ‘, insert ‘or a section of the public is,’.

In paragraph (b) alter’ public’, insert ‘or to a section of the public’.

I believe that the amendments are self explanatory.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti)Does the Attorney-General desire to move both amendments together?

Mr ENDERBY:

– If it suits the convenience of the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman, and the Committee. Perhaps I should speak to them first before the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), who has indicated that he wishes to speak to them, is heard. It is proposed that these provisions should apply to a section of the public as well as to members of the public. The amendments will bring the clause into line in this respect with other provisions of the Bill- for example, clause 13.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to speak against the clause. I have not seen the Attorney-General’s amendments to it, but I do not think that they have much to do with what I am about to say. Clause 11 and clause 12, which has not been mentioned yet, relate to the refusal to allow another person access to a place, vehicle or whatever. I think that that can be construed as the taking by a person of a racist attitude against another person when that is entirely incorrect. I think that the whole thrust of this portion of the Bill is working against the interests of society in general. It appears to me from my examination of this clause and subsequent clauses that an ordinary citizen can have the wrath or the whole strength of Part III of the Bill brought down upon him for quite the wrong reason- a misrepresented reason. I think that the citizens of Australia will rue the passing of these clauses.

Let me hasten to say here and now that the whole idea behind this Bill- the prevention of racial discrimination- must be supported, but the manner in which these clauses have been drafted and the hidden meaning that appears to me to be behind them could spell disaster for many an innocent citizen. It depends really upon who is going to interpret the legislation. I have noted that the Opposition has not expressed any objection to this clause or to clauses 12 and 13, but I know that it has expressed an objection to clause 15. 1 would like to point out strongly here and now that I consider that this clause could lead to the greatest injustice possible being perpetrated upon any Australian citizen.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think that it is important for the Committee to realise that all these clauses of the Bill have to be read with reference to clause 18, which contains the interpretation provision. Perhaps I can be permitted to ask the Committee to look at clause 18 because it controls the interpretation of these clauses. Clause 1 8 reads:

A reference in this Part to the doing of an act by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person includes a reference to the doing of an act for two or more reasons that include the first mentioned reason, whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act.

I simply say that because that clause of interpretation has been included there is going to be a great deal of trouble in regard to this clause and the other clauses which have been passed. I really think that this is going to do more harm than good.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12.

  1. 1 ) It is unlawful for a person, whether as a principal or agent-

    1. to refuse or fail to dispose of any estate or interest in land, or any residential or business accommodation, to a second person;
    2. b) to dispose of such an estate or interest or such accommodation to a second person on less favourable terms and conditions than those which are or would otherwise be offered;
    3. to treat a second person who is seeking to acquire or has acquired such an estate or interest or such accommodation less favourably than other persons in the same circumstances;
    4. d ) to refuse a second person the right to occupy any land or any residential or business accommodation; or
    5. to terminate any estate or interest in land of a second person or the right of a second person .to occupy any land or any residential or business accommodation, by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that second person or of any relative or associate of that second person.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In my opinion this is a simple amendment. As the Committee will appreciate, it seeks to omit the words ‘a second person the right’ from paragraph (d) of sub-clause (1) and to substitute the words ‘to permit a second person’. The purpose of the amendment is to bring these provisions to a section of the public as well as to members of the public. Acceptance of the amendment will bring the clause into line with the other aspects I have mentioned. The Government also considers it to be a drafting improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14- by leave- taken together.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I will not go through the remarks which I made concerning clause 1 1. 1 will refrain from repeating them or my similar remarks about clause 12. I took note of what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said. I agree that clause 18 is the one that actually governs these clauses. If the Committee looks at clause 13 it will find that it provides that it will be unlawful for a person who supplies goods or services to the public or to any section of the public to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person. This matter is being considered at a time when we who live in northern Australia are being accused by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) of being racist in relation to comments about the supply of alcohol to all sorts of people, whether they be coloured, white, or whatever.

If this clause is accepted it will mean that it can be found at law that it is unlawful for a person not to supply, say, 6 flagons of ruby red port to someone who is going to drink them on the banks of the Todd River in Alice Springs. This is one of the major problems confronting the ‘Northern Territory. It is one which has been mentioned by the Prime Minister. As I have said, people have been accused of being racist because they have objected to this sort of thing happening. The way I see it this clause would make it unlawful for me, as a person running a supermarket, not to supply methylated spirits or intoxicating liquor to some drunk who came into my place and demanded it. If we are to assist the development of good relations between the peoples of all creeds in this country I think that we should have a very good look at this matter because if the clause is to be applied in the way in which it reads there will be no control over the supply of anything to anyone.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– There is a great deal of substance in what the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has just said. Today a lunch which was hosted by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)- so apparently this is not a party matter at all- was attended by Aborigines from Oenpelli. They complained with great justice about what had been going on at the border store just outside the reserve at Oenpelli. It is utterly scandalous that at that place there has been a grog shop for some years which is in the process of destroying the Oenpelli community. The representatives of the Oenpelli community have come down to Canberra to say this and to ask us to do something about it.

What can we do under this kind of provision in the legislation? We know that shortly a mining venture will be established in the area. We know that pressure will be brought to bear to have alcohol provided for people who work in the mining venture. We are going to sit by and see the Aboriginal community at Oenpelli destroyed. I make no apology for using those words. They are the sentiments of the Oenpelli Aboriginals themselves whose representatives have come here to ask us to take some action against what is being done to them. Nor is this the only example.

A similar grog shop has been set up at Roper Bar just outside the Roper River reserve by, I believe- I am not certain of this- the same group of people who operate at Oenpelli. I believe the same thing is happening just outside the Daly River reserve. A move is being made which will result in the destruction of a large part of the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory.

This kind of provision in the legislation, well meaning though it is- all of us support the objectives behind this legislation- will make it more difficult for us or for any parliament to give adequate protection to the Aboriginal people against the destruction which they themselves see and which they themselves have asked us to do.something to abate. I repeat: Good intentions are not enough, and there are good intentions behind this legislation. The objectives of this legislation are admirable, but I just worry about the practical consequences.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 15 (Employment).

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

After sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ‘(2a) It is unlawful for a trade union or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a trade union to prevent another person from offering for employment or from continuing in employment by reason of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person. ‘

The purpose of this amendment is to add a further category of persons or bodies to those categories already in clause 15 regarding acts of discrimination in respect of employment. The Opposition believes that there is merit in including in clause 15 a proviso making it unlawful for a trade union, or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a trade union, to prevent another person offering for employment or continuing in employment by reason of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It is interesting to comment that clause 14 prohibits the rules or other documents constituting or governing the activities of a trade union imposing any kind of hindrance regarding the joining of that union by reason of race or colour. We therefore think that the Bill does not complete this process in a logical sequence by making it unlawful for the right of a person to offer and gain employment to be interfered with by a trade union on account of race or ethnic or national origin.

I think it is a commitment of all the major political parties of this country to make unlawful any incidence of discrimination in employment whether it be on the grounds of race, sex, colour or political or other opinions. It is certainly the declared policy of the Opposition parties that discrimination on that basis shall be unlawful. We think that the addition of the amendment I have moved would catch another category of acts of discrimination. There is evidence that trade unions and persons acting on behalf of trade unions have interfered with other persons in the circumstances contemplated by the amendment, and the Opposition sees good reason for its inclusion.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I speak in support of the amendment. Looking at clause 15, once again we have a clause which could be used as a tremendous weapon against any person employing anyone else. I know that the clause provides that it is unlawful for an employer or someone acting for him to refuse or fail to employ a person by reason of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. As an employer I could sack a person because he is inefficient, because he does not turn up for work, because he does not do the right thing or because he does not do something which I am paying him to do. If that person is a German, an Italian or of some other race he could say: ‘This man has sacked me because I am not a dinky-di Aussie’. That will happen again and again.

If one happens to sack an Aboriginal stockman because he is giving one’s horse a sore back or has left a saddle half-way down the road to Mt Isa instead of hanging it in the saddle shed, that man could go away and say that he was sacked because he is an Aboriginal. That will happen. Of course it will happen. There will be so much more ill will and misunderstanding than we have now. I am not saying that Aboriginals should not have legal aid but if one puts off an Aboriginal and he says that he has been sacked because he is an Aboriginal, the legal aid people will pick up his case and defend him.

Only the other day the priest who is endeavouring to run the Santa Teresa mission asked an Aboriginal to go to work. The Aboriginal said: ‘I need not go to work. I have legal aid to look after me’. We will just perpetrate the mistakemistake it certainly is - if we introduce provisions of the kind we are now discussing, because one of the main problems with Aboriginals today is that they are being given a lot of financial assistance but are being given nothing in the way of organising them to work and to earn the money that they are getting. This is basic to our existence whether we be yellow, black, white, brindle or whatever.

This provision will once again put something into the hands of people who will use it incorrectly. It is half way there already. I think it is a great pity that more research was not done on this legislation because these problems are evident in clause after clause, problems that will lead to a tremendous amount of ill feeling between the various classes of people in Australia, and to grave injustices.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government is indebted to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Opposition’s representative on this matter, because he has drawn attention to a feature of the Bill. Clause 15 in its present form relates only to an employer. It does not direct attention to associations. That is implicit in the amendment proposed by the Opposition. However the Government, having taken the Opposition’s point and being grateful for it, does not think it goes quite far enough. We will be opposing the amendment put forward by the Opposition only for that reason- a technical reason, so to speak. As soon as that issue is resolved, if it is resolved in the negative, I shall move an amendment which will extend the provisions of the clause so that they will include employees in the trade union situation and also employers. It is for that reason and no other reason that we are opposing the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

After sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ‘(2a) It is unlawful for an organisation of employers or employees, or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of such an organisation, to prevent, or to seek to prevent, another person from offering for employment or from continuing in employment by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person. ‘.

The amendment seeks to insert a new sub-clause (2a), which is what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) sought to do. The Government, having opposed his amendment, moves this one in its place. The Government takes the point offered by the Opposition but adds employer organisations to employee organisations.

Amendment agree to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 16A.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

Insert the following clause: ‘ 16a. It is unlawful for a person:

to incite the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of this Part, or

to assist or promote whether by financial assistance or otherwise the doing of such an act’

For the benefit of honourable members, I point out that for the purpose of this debate the proposed new clause 16A should be treated as the Opposition’s substitute clause for clause 29. At a later stage in the debate we will be moving for the deletion of clause 29. The purpose of proposed new clause 1 6 A is to bring the penalties or consequences in this Part of the Bill for inciting unlawful acts or providing financial assistance for the doing of any such acts into line with the pattern which the Opposition would hope to write into this Bill and to which I alluded in my speech in the second reading debate last evening; that is, if a person complains that something deemed in the legislation to be unlawful has been done by another person, then the person making the complaint goes to the Commissioner and the Commissioner convenes a conference between the person complaining and the person complained about, endeavours to effect a reconciliation between them- a settlement of their differences- and then and only then, if the complainant still is not satisfied, the complainant has the right of civil action against the person whose behaviour has been called in to question.

I know the argument that an act of inciting racial discrimination is in some respects more despicable than individual acts of racial discrimination, because the presence of intent by a person who incites an act of racial discrimination can hardly be called in to question whereas the intent of a person who commits an act of racial discrimination- certainly some of the acts of racial discrimination as they are prescribed in the language of this legislation- may not be quite the same malicious intent as that of the person who incites. In some respects this proposition is analogous to a comparison between a drug pusher and a drug user. But, that notwithstanding, the Opposition feels that the penalty or the consequences for inciting an act of racial discrimination ought still to be civil matters and that they ought to follow the pattern which the Opposition has endeavoured to establish with its other amendments to the procedures to follow complaints of racial discrimination.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government regrets that it cannot accept this amendment. It is not that we do not accept some of the thinking that is behind the point of view put by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). It is quite correct to draw attention to the fact that clause 16 and proposed new clause 16A are related to clause 29. As honourable members would see, the

Government proposes to amend clause 29, which deals with the criminal side and links up with Part II in which clause 16 is to be found. The Government will liberalise, if I may use that word, clause 29 by seeking to delete paragraph (b) of it. So, in that regard it can be said that we are taking a step towards the point of view of the Opposition; but we oppose the amendment now being put forward.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 17 (Liability of principals and employers).

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition opposes this clause in toto and seeks its deletion. Having regard to what the Opposition sees as the fairly Draconian provisions of this Bill as it presently stands, and given the state of numbers in this chamber as it is likely to stand after this Committee debate, the Opposition is concerned that the rather automatic penalty which will be attracted by a principal, often an unwitting principal, under the provisions of clause 1 7 are not satisfactory. We do not believe that a form of vicarious visitation of liability should attach to the types of acts that are prescribed by this Bill. If the Government feels that there is need to drag in principals in the situations in contemplation by clause 17, I would again ask the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to consider the fact that, particularly in the provisions of this Bill affecting accommodation and the sale of property, we are breaking very new ground.

I ask the Attorney-General to contemplate the situation that could arise where, in plain language, there is a racially bigoted estate agent and a perfectly tolerant vendor and, just because the tolerant vendor strictly speaking does not comply with the exemptions which are in clause 17, he could find himself in a most unfortunate situation. Given that the Government is going to create a category of offences in respect of the letting and sale of property, I accept that there is a very strong argument in some way to bring in principals; but the Opposition is unhappy with the possible consequences of clause 17 to people who have no thought of discriminating on racial grounds and who could be the unwitting victims of discriminatory acts by their agents. I think it is a serious enough matter to warrant deletion at this stage. Once again, in the light of experience the legislation might be suitably amended at a later date.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government accepts the spirit of the contribution made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). One is never happy with vicarious liability in its pure form. Yet social circumstances have always required that there be vicarious liability. I suppose the concept was created by the common law itself and by the judges. Certainly it is nothing new in our statutes. I give the honourable member my assurance that the matter will be kept under consideration. However, at this stage it is considered to be a desirable part of this Bill. Such a concept finds a place in the New Zealand and United Kingdom legislation. Of course that by itself would not be persuasive but on the information that comes to me it is not being abused and it is serving a very useful place in that other type of legislation, given the nature of the problem. We oppose the proposition put by the honourable member for Bennelong.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18.

A reference in this Fart to the doing of an act by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person includes a reference to the doing of an act for two or more reasons that include the first-mentioned reason, whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

Omit ‘whether or not’, substitute ‘provided ‘.

Clause 1 8 deals with those situations where there are two or more reasons for a person doing an act, one of which is by reason of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of another person. The Opposition has given a great deal of consideration to this clause and is very strongly of the opinion that if this Bill is to proscribe the behaviour which is dealt with in earlier clauses, and if situations arise where there are more reasons than one why a person has done a certain act, it is only reasonable if we are creating a new category of offences so far as the law is concerned that the offence which will attract a penalty or a consequence be the dominant reason for the doing of the act. It is not an open and shut situation. I recognise that there are arguments to the contrary and that where there is a mixture of reasons some might argue that it is sufficient that racial discrimination be a substantial reason. But the Opposition believes that it should be the dominant reason for the doing of the act so that in all the circumstances it is fair to say that the reason why a person acted in a particular way was on the ground of racial discrimination.

I think this would be in accord with the comments I made last night in relation to the fact that this is new legislation. It will be strange to a lot of people. I think that quite deservedly it will catch a lot of people but it will also catch some people who have unwittingly committed acts of racial discrimination. We therefore think it is necessary in all the circumstances that there be no doubt that the reason why a person has done an act complained of is by reason of racial discrimination.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-This clause relates to the previous clause. The effect of this Bill upon the community will depend, more than most Acts- when this Bill becomes an Act- upon its ability to influence the community and upon its acceptance by the community. If as a result of adopting too hard a clause where it is too easy to effect legal remedy injustice is done only in a few cases the Act itself will be brought into disrespect. The backlash will be considerable. In fact, we may reach the position where it does more harm than good. It depends overwhelmingly for its beneficial effects upon its acceptance. It is an educative piece of legislation. For that reason I urge the Government to consider the course which the Opposition has proposed under which it will not be so easy to obtain a remedy. There will be less risk that an unwitting injustice is done.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– Implicit in both the contribution from the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) has been the difficulty of the task which is posed by this Racial Discrimination Bill. There are different points of view. For example, in South Australia the State Government has taken a different view from the view taken in this Bill. It has not written in the reference to the dominant purpose. This has given a great deal of difficulty and trouble. I appreciate that one could argue, as I think one of the 2 honourable gentlemen argued, that it is better to be safe and to let a few fish escape, so to speak, than to be heavy-handed. That is a very legitimate and proper point of view. However, the magnitude of the problem in the eyes of the Government warrants this form of words. It is a matter which has given us alot of concern. It flashed through my mind that one could write in the word ‘substantial’. We rejected that. The matter will be kept under review in the Senate. Certainly at this stage the Government holds the view that the magnitude of the mischief, if I can put it that way, which requires attention justifies the language in the Bill which is before the House.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20.

The functions of the Commissioner are-

  1. to inquire into alleged infringements of Part II, and endeavour to effect a settlement of the matters alleged to constitute those infringements, in accordance with section 21;
  2. where the Commissioner is unable so to effect a settlement of a matter, to institute a proceeding in a court in accordance with sub-section 25 (1) in relation to the matter;
  3. to promote an understanding and acceptance of, and compliance with, this Act; and

  4. to develop, conduct and foster research and educational programs and other programs for the purpose of -

    1. combating racial discrimination and prejudices that lead to racial discrimination;
    2. promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups; and
    3. propagating the purposes and principles of the Convention.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move:

Omit paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential upon the approach the Opposition takes to proceedings under the Act The Opposition does not believe that the Commissioner should have a role beyond that of conciliator and educator. The Opposition’s amendments preclude the right of the Commissioner to take proceedings. His role shall be merely to conciliate in an effort to effect settlement of differences which arise out of acts alleged to be acts of racial discrimination. Therefore, as a mechanical consequence, we seek to delete the right of the Commissioner to institute proceedings.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I think the whole essence of the contract is that the power of the Government be reinforced with the capacity of the Commissioner to act. While I admit that the question of race discrimination is something in the hearts and minds of people, and it will not be resolved by law, the fact is that in this country the law is not only an expression as outlined in legislation but also it has to have the look of force or the effect of governmental power behind it before most people will take it seriously. I do not think the Australian community is addicted to lawbreaking but there is no doubt in my mind that a great deal of the force of legislation comes from the prospect of penalties. In other words, there has to be some power by which the Commissioner can enforce his will. As was pointed out in the debate earlier this is an area in which we are adventuring for the first time. It is an area in which there has not been perhaps a great deal of success in the rest of the world, but it has its influence. To create a situation in which the

Commissioner was unable to act after having failed to conciliate would be to remove a great deal of the raison d d’etre from this piece of legislation. I hope the Committee will retain this provision and leave the Commissioner with the capacity to act on behalf of the nation in this matter.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– Briefly, in addition to what my colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) had to say I point out that the Government takes the view that the legislation is necessary in this form. It is modelled largely on the United Kingdom legislation which has been effective. It is not unknown for conciliators also to have power to commence proceedings following conciliation. As honourable members will be aware, in the same Committee stage we will be introducing a number of amendments to give legal assistance to people who come before the conciliation compulsory conference process as well as those who face an examination before a judge- if it gets to that stage- and even in subsequent proceedings.

May I also put this reason to honourable members: It seems to the Government unjust, it seems wrong, it seems oppressive to expect a person in the community who is probably a very inarticulate person, often a very vulnerable person, to pick up the cudgels against a more articulate and more powerful person even though the more powerful person may have broken some rule of law and even though the weaker person is assisted with legal aid. It seems to me that there is a lot to be said for allowing the commissioner to take the proceedings in situations like this. I search my mind and find that it is done in South Australia in a different context, in the world of consumer protection. The prices controller there very often brings actions against large corporations because it is deemed proper and appropriate that he should do so rather than leave it to the little man to chance his arm in the unfamiliar and sometimes fearsome surroundings of a court of law. It is for those reasons that we put the measure forward.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21. (1)Where-

  1. a complaint is made to the Commissioner that a person has done an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II; or
  2. it appears to the Commissioner that a person has done an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, the Commissioner shall, subject to sub-section (2), inquire into the act and endeavour to effect a settlement of the matter to which the act relates.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move:

This is a very short, simple and explanatory amendment. The Opposition thinks that any complaints made to the Commissioner ought to be in writing. It is self evident that any complaint of an act to which the Government seeks to have attracted a criminal penalty ought at least as a minimum requirement to be a complaint made in writing. I do not think that the Government or honourable members could accuse the Opposition of pettifogging or nitpicking but we think that as a minimum requirement, if somebody makes a complaint of a serious nature like this, at least it should be made in writing.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Clause 2 1 has frightful implications. This is the clause to which my legal colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred when he said that it was an extraordinary state of affairs when a faceless pimp could virtually supply information to the Commissioner against a certain person. He continued by saying that it seeks to put into legislation Star Chamber methods. That is dead right. If a person can say of anyone, ‘I heard him call someone a so and so Kraut’ or whatever might be insulting to some other person, if it is reported to the Commissioner and proceedings are instituted, the person who is accused has no rights at all. He does not even know who is accusing him or who to defend himself against. He is just trying to defend himself from a faceless person.

Surely we can see the implications of this situation in the political world. Do we want to see them or do we want to ignore them? It would be a shocking thing if this were allowed to go through and this were allowed to happen in Australia. An ordinary innocent citizen may be accused by a business rival, a political rival or any other sort of person who disagrees with or dislikes him. By this legislation his freedom can be attacked by an unknown person and this ordinary person may have to appear before the Commissioner. Later on he may be castigated. Some people could be ruined by the penalties imposed. Those matters will be relevant when we discuss other clauses and I will have something to say about them later on.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) cited the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). We all love the honourable member for Moreton but he was in one of his periods of full flight on the occasion on which he referred to Star Chamber methods.

Mr Calder:

– I thought he spoke very well.

Mr ENDERBY:

– He always speaks very well. The Government is quite happy to accept the responsible amendment put forward by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), which requires that any complaint be made in writing. We think that that is a very slight improvement. The honourable member apologised if the Government thought that the amendment was pettifogging. It is not that. My ministerial colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) asks what happens if a man cannot write. Some people cannot write. That would not prevent the complaint being written for him on instructions by some other person who could write. The other criticism is quite absurd. It is inconceivable in this conciliatory process- what is envisaged here and is spelt out in great particularity is a conciliation process- that a person could come before the compulsory conference and not be told who was the complainant. I record it now that the Government does not intend that it should be so.

Mr Calder:

– Why did you not put it in the Bill?

Mr ENDERBY:

-One can put everything in a Bill if one wants to. One can put everything in every Bill and the pages would stretch from here to eternity.

Mr Calder:

– How do we know what you are thinking about?

Mr ENDERBY:

-I will not bother to answer the honourable member. The purposes of the inquiry are narrowly defined. It is not a roving Star Chamber situation at all. One has only to read the language of the Bill to see that. It is interesting that the honourablemember for Bennelong did not bother to waste his time on the points raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I simply want to reinforce the remarks made by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). Of course there are powers under clause 57 to make regulations about appearances before courts and so on. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is reading much more into clause 2 1 than can possibly arise. The Bill contains provisions by which, if the complaint is trivial or appears to be trivial to the Commissioner, he will not proceed. If we were afraid of the kinds of results that the honourable member for the Northern Territory predicts we would not proceed with this kind of legislation at all. I hope that, having made the requirement that the complaint be in writing, those thousands of Australians who are still illiterate, both illiterate by language and illiterate by actual place of birth- I refer to Aboriginal people in many parts of Australia- will still have proper access to the resources of the Commissioner. I have no doubt that from what the Attorney-General has ever done and said in this field he will ensure that that is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22.

  1. For the purpose of inquiring into an act, or endeavouring to settle the matter to which an act relates, in accordance with sub-section 21 ( 1), the Commissioner may direct a person referred to in sub-section (2 ) of this section to attend, at a time and place specified in the direction, at a conference presided over by the Commissioner or by an officer or employee of the Commissioner.

  2. Directions under sub-section ( 1 ) may be given to-

    1. a person who made a complaint to the Commissioner in relation to the act;
    2. the person who is alleged to have done the act; and
    3. any other person whose presence at the conference the Commissioner thinks is likely to be conducive to the settlement of the matter to which the act relates.

  3. A person who has been given a direction under subsection (1) to attend a conference shall not, without reasonable excuse-

    1. fail to attend as required by the direction; or
    2. fail to attend and report himself from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the person presiding over the conference.

Penalty:$250.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move: ‘

In sub-clause ( 1 ) omit ‘ a person ‘, substitute ‘ the persons ‘.

In sub-clause (2) omit ‘may’, substitute ‘shall’.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has drawn attention to the possible use of the Star Chamber methods. With respect to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), I do not think that that is a total exaggeration. If there is no intention by the Government that the identity of a person making a complaint should not be disclosed to the person whose act is complained of, that ought to be made clear. It is sufficiently important a matter not to be left in doubt. It is all very well to say that if that is done one has to put everything into the Act, but this is not just a mere triviality. It is a fairly fundamental principle that there be no doubt that if somebody complains that a person has done something which has the character of a criminal offence, that person ought at least as a minimum know who the complainant is. In order to meet this situation and to put to rest any doubt about the matter, the Opposition proposes an amendment to clause 22 which would speak of ‘the persons’, in other words, the person who makes the complaint and the person whose behaviour is complained of. If our amendment is accepted there will be absolutely no doubt. There will be a clear obligation on the Commissioner, on receiving a complaint in writing, to bring both of the people together. Their identities would be made known and there would be no doubt whatever as to who had made the complaint and who had allegedly committed the act of which complaint is made. I do not believe, nor does the Opposition, that this is a vexatious, frivolous or nitpicking amendment. We think that it is absolutely essential. If members of the Government feel that Opposition speakers in this debate have railed against some of the more unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill, it is because it appears to the Opposition that there has been an indifference on the part of the Government in drafting the provisions of this legislation to take account of some of the fundamental things, when one is dealing with civil liberties and the rights of the individual, which have been known to our law for many centuries. The right to know your accuser is certainly one such fundamental right. As I have said before, we are breaking new ground. Therefore, it is essential that there be no doubt in the mind of any person who is dragged before the Commissioner and who might be subject to criminal penalties right from the beginning who his accuser is.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– We are happy to oblige in the interests of being co-operative and conciliatory, which is the spirit of that clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (1) omit ‘an officer or employee’, substitute ‘a member of the staff’.

This is a consequential amendment flowing from the decision that the Commissioner’s staff is to be employed under the Public Service Act. I spoke to it when I dealt with the first amendment I moved. I think it was accepted by my friend opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I should have earlier moved an amendment to clause 22 which has been circulated in my name. It simply substitutes the word ‘shall’ for the word ‘may’. I move.

In sub-clause (2) omit ‘may’, substitute ‘shall’.

Mr ENDERBY:
Canberra AttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government accepts the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move: After sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub-clause: ‘(2a) A person who has been given a direction under subsection ( 1) to attend at a conference is entitled to be paid by Australia a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance at the conference. ‘.

This amendment will allow a person directed to attend a compulsory conference to be reimbursed reasonable expenses incurred, those expenses commonly being called conduct money. The Government thinks that this is appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

At the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ‘(4) In any proceeding instituted under section 25, no evidence shall be given and no statements shall be made with respect to anything said or done at a conference held in pursuance of a direction given under this section. ‘.

This relates to subsequent proceedings that might well take place. The Government believes that it is desirable in the interests of avoiding any possible oppression, although it seems unlikely. This amendment puts the matter less at risk. The Government also believes that it will assist in the conciliation process.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23.

  1. 1 ) Where a prescribed authority has reason to believe that a person is capable of giving evidence or producing documents relating to a matter that is the subject of an inquiry under section 2 1, the prescribed authority may, if the Commissioner so requests, by notice in writing served on tha t person, require that person to appear before the prescribed authority at a time and place specified in the notice and give any such evidence, either orally or in writing, and produce any such documents.
  2. A person served with a notice under this section is entitled to be paid out of the moneys of the Commissioner a reasonable sum for the expenses of his attendance before the prescribed authority.

  3. 3 ) The prescribed authority may-

    1. require a person appearing before the prescribed authority to give evidence either to take an oath or make an affirmation; and
    2. administer an oath or affirmation to a person so appearing before the prescribed authority.
  4. The oath or affirmation to be taken or made by a person for the purposes of this section is an oath or affirmation that the answers he will give to the questions asked him will be true.
  5. Where a person appears before a prescribed authority in accordance with a notice served under this section, either the prescribed authority or the Commissioner may put to the person such questions relating to the matter that is the subject of the inquiry under section 21 as the prescribed authority thinks proper.

  6. A person served with a notice under this section to appear before a prescribed authority shall not, without reasonable excuse-

    1. fail to appear as required by the notice; or
    2. fail to appear and report himself from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the prescribed authority.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. 7) A person appearing before a prescribed authority shall not-

    1. when required in pursuance of sub-section (3) either to take an oath or make an affirmation- refuse or fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirement;
    2. refuse or fail without reasonable excuse to answer a question that he is required to answer by the prescribed authority;
    3. refuse or fail without reasonable excuse to produce a document that he was required to produce by a notice under this section served on him; or
    4. knowingly give evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $1,000

  1. A person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document in pursuance of this section on the ground that the answer to the question or the document may tend to incriminate him, but any such answer or document is not admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding other than a proceeding for an offence against sub-section (7).
  2. A prescribed authority has, in the exercise of his powers under this Act, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court.
  3. A person who has been served with a notice under thus section to appear before a prescribed authority has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this section, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.
  4. 1 1 ) In this section, ‘prescribed authority’ means a person who holds office as a Judge of the Superior Court of Australia or of the Australian Industrial Court.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I move:

Omit the clause.

As is obvious, the amendment I have moved seeks to delete clause 23 in its entirety. As I have said earlier both in this debate in Committee and during the second reading debate, the Opposition believes that the behaviour dealt with in this legislation should be in turn dealt with so far as proceedings are concerned in an entirely different manner from that proposed by the Government. It is consequential to that attitude for the Opposition to seek to delete clause 23. Once again the Opposition seeks a situation in which the persons who are in conflict over the alleged behaviour of one of those persons should be before the Commissioner in a totally conciliatory atmosphere. At the time those persons are before the Commissioner, there should not be any proceedings actually commenced by the person making the complaint, or any immediate threat of proceedings or prosecution hanging over the head of the person whose behaviour has been complained of. We do agree that if this conciliation procedure fails, then and only then should the person making the complaint have the right to civil proceedings against the person about whose conduct a complaint has been made. The pattern of proceedings desired by the Government in this and other clauses of the Bill for dealing with complaints arising under Part II of the Bill is not one which attracts us. It may be one which in the light of experience of the operation of this legislation in the form that we would like it might be found in certain cases to be necessary. But at this stage we think that the sort of proceedings the Government has in mind do go too far, and do contain dangers. Therefore, we oppose it. Part of that opposition is to seek the deletion of clause 23.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) designed to omit clause 23. The Attorney-General seems to think that my opinions are irresponsible and light and endeavours to brush them aside in that manner. But the provisions of this clause could be applied in a very vicious manner. I used the words ‘star chamber’ when speaking to a clause debated earlier. My heavens, my remarks would apply utterly in the same way in relation to this clause. I consider that the Government should omit this clause, or at least rethink the whole matter and produce something else. A person could be brought before the Commissioner by somebody whose name he does not know and could be asked any number of questions or required to produce certain documents. He could be fined a savage fine of $1,000 if he declined to answer or to produce something which it could well be considered by the people who were accusing him that he could be disadvantaged by so doing. One would have hoped that the Government would have seen to it that if this is occurred the accused would have legal representation. So I completely support the amendment calling for the omission of this clause. I hope the Attorney-General will knuckle down to it and realise that many Australians will not be party to this Bill. When Australians read and understand these clauses I believe they will support the remarks and views of honourable members on this side of the House.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I support very strongly the Opposition’s attitude in relation to clause 23. In my speech in the second reading debate I stressed the fact that the law has a dual function. One aspect is to outline procedures under which people live and the other is to develop a community attitude towards desirable activities within society. The Opposition believes very strongly that this legislation ‘s chances of success will be enhanced if the population as a whole, the Australian society as a whole, sees it as a set of procedures which do all they can to bring about conciliation between parties between whom there is some disagreement, without adopting too legalistic a basis or framework.

If clause 23 is allowed to remain in the Bill it will give people who have some dispute in relation to the matters covered by the Bill the opportunity to adopt 2 procedures at the same time. They can move for the conciliation procedures to take place and they also can move, as I understand it, at the same time for civil proceedings to be instituted. In my view and in the view of the Opposition, the conciliation procedures should be exhausted before civil proceedings are embarked upon. For the legal profession it may be nice to have the 2 things going at once, but this is not what we are after in this situation. Surely what we are after is a means whereby disputes can be settled as amicably as possible.

Yesterday I spoke as strongly as I could on the fact that most racial discrimination in Australia, I believe, comes about through inadvertence. If my assumption is correct, those discriminatory acts which do come about through inadvertence could best be handled by the conciliation procedures. I believe it would hasten the process if our amendment were agreed to. It also would avoid the possibility of a great heap of litigation building up in the pipeline which may not necessarily build up if” the conciliation procedures are successful. We would make every effort to ensure that the conciliation procedures were successful. We certainly would not like to see civil remedies not being available to people who have a legitimate complaint, but we certainly would like to lay the stress at this stage upon the conciliation procedures. As the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has already said, it may be that something of this nature may need to be added subsequently. But let us see whether we can make the thing work without excessively legalistic frameworks at this stage.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I wish to move all the Government amendments to clause 23.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Is leave granted to move the amendments together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ), omit ‘a prescribed authority has reason to believe’, substitute ‘the Commissioner satisfies a prescribed authority’.

In sub-clause ( 1 ), omit ‘if the Commissioner so requests, ‘.

In sub-clause (2), omit ‘out of the moneys of the Commissioner’, substitute ‘by Australia’.

After sub-clause (4), insert the following sub-clause: ‘(4a) Where a person appears before a prescribed authority in accordance with a notice served under this section, the person and the Commissioner are each entitled to be represented by a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. ‘.

In sub-clause (S), omit ‘either the prescribed authority or the Commissioner’, substitute ‘the prescribed authority, the Commissioner or a person representing the Commissioner’.

In sub-clause (6), omit ‘$ 1 ,000’, substitute ‘$250 ‘.

On the question of the appropriateness of clause 23 generally, it certainly is not intended to be over-legalistic. One appreciates quite fully the dangers of that. But one also appreciates quite fully the consequences of not having in the Bill some means for the Commissioner to acquire information in certain circumstances. The experience in the United Kingdom has been that people who come before compulsory conferences are quite prepared, indeed determined, to thumb their noses at them and just refuse to say anything at all. They are firm in their bigotry, so to speak, and just will not co-operate or conciliate in any way. As honourable members know, the Commissioner is to have an educative role as well as a conciliatory role and other roles. It certainly has been considered desirable to have the examination provision for the purpose of acquiring facts. The examination will be carried out by a supreme court judge or a judge with the status of a supreme court judge. If the Superior Court Bill is ever enacted, it will be carried out by someone from that Court. In the meantime it will be carried out by a judge of the Australian Industrial Court.

The amendments I have moved seek to meet some of the criticisms the Opposition has put forward. Indeed, I should say generally that today we are accepting many of the Opposition’s amendments. If the Opposition had not put them forward, the Government would have put them forward either in the same form or in a slightly different form. In fact, the first set of draft amendments prepared for consideration in this Committee took in some of the amendments the Opposition has now proposed. So we have not pursued ours, as we are accepting the Opposition’s. I shall draw attention to some that we have put in. We oppose the Opposition’s move to delete the clause because we consider the clause appropriate, although we have, for example, changed the first line of clause 23. Lawyers present will appreciate the distinction. The original form contained the words ‘where a prescribed authority has reason to believe’. That is a pretty easy test to satisfy. We have strengthened that test quite a lot. We seek to insert the words: ‘where the Commissioner satisfies a prescribed authority’. That puts a much stronger burden on the Commissioner. It is a well understood formula. The other amendments are consequential on it. Some of them are rather technical. We propose to reduce the fine from $1,000 to $250. We shall provide that the person appearing before the judge is entitled to legal representation and we also shall provide that the Government will pay the bill. We do not think we can go very much further than that, given the nature of the problem that exists.

This is the first time that an Australian government has ever sought to tackle racial discrimination in Australia with a law of this sort. Other countries have been doing it for years, with mixed success. We have studied the experiments and efforts that those other countries have made. It is a difficult problem. The South Australian Government has legislation on the subject. When one seeks to enact a law for the whole of Australia one has to realise that there are different parts of Australia- different in the sense that racial discrimination might be found to be more extensive in some parts than in others. I think one of the Opposition speakers mentioned that in Australia generally racial discrimination, where it occurred, was often inadvertent. I have no doubt that in many cases that is correct. But I would dispute that it is always correct.

Mr MacKellar:

– I did not say that.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I appreciate that the honourable member did not. I should like to think that in those cases where it occurs in, say, a city such as Canberra it is more often than not inadvertent, but in other places in Australia- I need not mention them- it often is not inadvertent; it goes way beyond being inadvertent. I see my friends nodding in agreement with me. When one enacts a law of this sort one hopes that it might not be used very much in the Australian Capital Territory and that it will just lie on the statute book. In those parts of Australia where it is needed it will be used, one hopes with good effect. I hope I have given some answer to the points put forward by honourable members.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25.

  1. 1 ) Where, after inquiry into an act done by a person, the Commissioner is unable to effect a settlement in accordance with sub-section 21 (1), the Commissioner may, subject to sub-section (7), institute a proceeding in relation to the act by way of civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for any one or more of the remedies specified in section 26.

  2. The parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection ( 1 ) are-

    1. the Commissioner;
    2. any person who is joined by the court as a party to the proceeding in accordance with sub-section (3 ); and
    3. the person who did the act to which the proceeding relates.

  3. Where an application to be joined as a party to a proceeding instituted under sub-section ( 1 ) is made to the court by a person who-

    1. before the proceeding was instituted, made a complaint to the Commissioner in relation to the act to which the proceeding relates;
    2. claims to be aggrieved by the act to which the proceeding relates;
    3. claims to have an interest in the proceeding; or
    4. ) is a member of an organisation or association of persons that is claimed by him to have an interest in the proceeding, the court may, in its discretion, join the person as a party to the proceeding.
  4. A person aggrieved by an act that he considers to have been unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II may, subject to subsection (7), institute a proceeding in relation to the act by way of civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for any one or more of the remedies specified in section 26.
  5. ) If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the continuance of a proceeding instituted under sub-section (4) will affect adversely the performance of the functions of the Commissioner under sub-section 2 1 ( 1 ), he may apply to the court for a stay of that proceeding.
  6. Where an application is made under sub-section (5), if the court is satisfied that the continuance of the proceeding will adversely affect the performance of the functions of the Commissioner under sub-section 2 1 ( 1 ), it shall stay the proceeding but, if not so satisfied, it shall refuse the application.

  7. A proceeding may not be instituted under this section in respect of the doing of an act (other than an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 16) in relation to-

    1. accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons; or
    2. employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: 25 ( 1 ) A person aggrieved by an act that he considers to have been unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II may subject to this section institute a proceeding in relation to the act by way of civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for any one or more of the remedies specified in section 26.

A proceeding may not be instituted under this section in respect of the doing of an act (other than an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 16) in relation to-

accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons; or

employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.

No proceeding shall be instituted unless the person aggrieved has received prior to the institution of such proceeding a certificate signed by the Commission stating that the Commissioner, a conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commissioner has presided over a conference directed by the Commissioner under sub-section 22 ( 1) and has endeavoured to settle the matter and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled.

No evidence shall be given or received and no statement shall be made in any proceeding instituted under this section with respect to anything said or done at a conference directed to be held pursuant to section 22. ‘.

This particular amendment is the very heart of the Opposition’s approach to this Bill. The amendment provides that a person who is unhappy with the conciliation process, a person who complains that he or she has been a victim of an act of racial discrimination and feels that nothing has been achieved can go to a civil court and commence proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for any of the remedies which are set out in clause 26. Those remedies include damages, injunction and the like. Once again, the important point is that the procedure is clear. A person who complains of an act goes to the Commissioner; the process of conciliation, hopefully of reconciliation, is then commenced. An effort is made by the Commissioner to bring about a settlement of the differences.

I can contemplete that if this procedure is adopted there will be many instances in which a person whose conduct is complained of will agree before the Commissioner to pay damages to the person who makes the complaint. But as I see it, the great virtue of the Opposition’s amendment is that there will be a genuine onus not only on the person whose conduct is complained of but also on the person who makes the complaint. There will be a genuine onus on both of them when they go before the Commissioner to endeavour to settle their differences. The person who makes the complaint will not be able to abuse the process of conciliation by commencing civil proceedings at the same time as he or she lodges a complaint with the Commissioner. I know of many other instances in the law where there is provision for a person to go to a compulsory conference for conciliation or arbitration, but it becomes an empty formality simply because that person has the right to commence civil proceedings at the same time as he or she goes to conciliation or arbitration. So both parties are negotiating before the conciliatorthe Commissioner in this case- under duress.

That will not be the case with the Opposition ‘s amendment. Certainly we concede that if a person making a complaint is unhappy with the process of conciliation and feels that his or her honour has not been acquitted, that person has a perfect right, on getting a certificate from the Commissioner, to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The other important proviso that the Opposition has included in this amendment, and I think this a proviso that has been picked up in one of the Attorney-General’s amendments, is that anything said or done or admitted before the conciliator cannot be brought into evidence in any subsequent proceedings. The purpose of putting such a proviso in this clause is quite obvious. If one is going to have proper process of conciliation, if one is going to have any hope of arguing out differences and reaching settlement, of having apologies given and compromises reached, obviously one has to have an atmosphere across the table where persons do not feel that they are prejudiced if they admit they might have lost their temper, might have said something that was insulting or might have been a bit harsh in their conditions of employment. A person ought not to feel that in saying that he is going to be up for damages and that such an admission in an act of conciliation can be used against him at a later stage. If that sort of atmosphere prevails there is no hope in the world, as my friend knows, of ever achieving any kind of reconciliation, any kind of settlement of differences.

Again, the Opposition very sincerely asks the Government to consider the sort of procedure we have in mind, which admittedly is a softer approach to the treatment of racial discrimination than that desired by the Government. Because this legislation breaks new ground, because it introduces penalties and defences which will be strange to the great majority of Australian people, and many people of goodwill will feel uneasy about them, we think that a gentler, softer approach at the beginning is necessary. The whole thrust of the Opposition’s approach to the amendment of this Bill is contained in clause 25 and we ask the Government to give very serious consideration to our amendment.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-The Government regrets that it cannot accept the amendment. The question of civil proceedings is, as the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) would know, a pretty basic right that is enjoyed by any citizen. If one were to take it away lightly one would indeed be criticised. Yet in a way that is what the honourable member suggests that we do- deny the person that right while the conciliation proceedings take place. The Government takes quite a different view, and it does not think that it is any harder. We declare the wrong, if one may put it that way, and give the right to the citizen aggrieved, who might be an Aboriginal in Queensland or Western Australia or any part of Australia, to bring proceedings. That person is not bound by the conciliation proceedings. The Commissioner has a discretion, of course, and it is relevant to point out to the honourable gentleman that if one looks at clause 25, sub-clauses (5) and (6), one will see that if the aggrieved person seeks to exercise his right by going straight to a court the Commissioner can move in that court for a stay. It is then a matter for the court to decide whether or not the conciliation process has paramountcy over the right to damages or an injunction which the person might be seeking. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26.

  1. Where any damages are awarded against the defendant in accordance with paragraph (l)(d) in respect of loss suffered by, or loss of dignity by, humiliation to, or injury to the feelings of, a person aggrieved by the relevant act-

    1. in the case where that person instituted the proceeding or, if the proceeding was instituted by the Commissioner, that person is a party to the proceedingthe damages are payable by the defendant to that person; or
    2. in any other case- the damages are payable by the defendant to the Commissioner, who shall forthwith pay them to that person.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I move:

Omit sub-clause (2).

This amendment seeks to omit the second part of clause 26. Once again, this is really consequential upon the Opposition’s approach to the legislation. This sub-clause of clause 26 as it now stands contemplates a right in the Commissioner to institute proceedings. The Opposition’s amendment would take away that right and it would be superfluous to include that sub-clause.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment for the reasons I have given.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28.

A person shall not, with intent to promote hostility or illwill against, or to bring into contempt or ridicule, persons included in a group of persons in Australia by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the persons included in that group-

  1. publish or distribute written matter,
  2. b ) broadcast words by means of radio or television; or
  3. utter words in any public place, or within the hearing of persons in any public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, being written matter that promotes, or words that promote, ideas based on-
  4. the alleged superiority of persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin over persons of a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin; or
  5. hatred of persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Penalty: $5,000.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-Mr Deputy Chairman, the Opposition cannot accept clause 28 in any circumstances. I recognise the Government’s good intent in including this clause, but to get into the field of prohibiting the dissemination of ideas is something which is so dangerous, in the Opposition’s view, that in no circumstances could we agree to the inclusion of the clause. I know that those who would speak against the argument I am putting would inevitably point their finger at Nazi Germany, would inevitably draw attention to the dissemination of ideas in books and periodicals which seek to assert that one race is inherently superior to another. I accept that such an argument would be inevitable, but it is one of those situations where one has to balance competing demands.

On the one hand, there is the demand to eliminate acts of racial discrimination. On the other hand, there is the demand for preservation of a completely free society in which it is proper and reasonable for people to have freedom to disseminate ideas. The Opposition accepts that any acts which incite racial discrimination ought to be made unlawful, and in fact the earlier sections of this Bill do make that sort of behaviour unlawful. But to attempt to proscribe the dissemination of ideas, however base many people in this chamber might find those ideas, is to get into an area which m the view of the Opposition is so dangerous and could infringe on such a basic right that the Opposition very strongly opposes the inclusion in the Bill of this clause.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I move the following amendment to clause 28:

In paragraph (c), after ‘access’, insert ‘or any section of the public is invited or has access.

I think the amendment is self-explanatory. Speaking in opposition to the move to delete the clause, though, we fully appreciate what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) says about the requirements and obligations of a free society. There is nothing detrimental to that aim in this clause. One does not have to go to Nazi Germany to see recent examples that perhaps would be in flagrant breach of a clause such as clause 28. Even in the general election campaign of May 1974 there were examples that could well have constituted a breach against a clause of that sort. Some of the examples I saw would have done so, in my view, but the honourable member for Bennelong may not have seen the examples I saw. What happened was not directed at me but was directed at a person who was once a member of this House. However, be that as it may.

Another aspect that should be borne in mind is that this Bill gives effect to an international convention and, indeed, largely draws its legislative capacity and authority from that convention. The penalty provisions, such as clause 28, are required by that convention. Even if it were not so, I would argue that a clause such as clause 28 is very desirable because the criminal law does not only provide a penalty; it expresses a sense of community outrage at certain types of behaviour.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put-

That clause 28, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. S. Luchetti)

AYES: 60

NOES: 56

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 29.

A person shall not-

Penalty: $5,000.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

A person shall not incite the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II.

Penalty: $5,000.’.

The amendment is self-explanatory. I spoke to it when addressing the Committee on one of the earlier occasions. It seeks to delete sub-clause (b) and to restate the clause.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition would seek by the amendment that was circulated in my name to delete clause 29. Once again, this was part of the pattern of amendments put down by the Opposition which believes that acts inciting racial discrimination should attract the same types of consequences as those acts themselves. For that reason, we proposed to seek the deletion of clause 29.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30.

  1. 1) A person shall not insult, hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with the Commissioner, an officer or employee of the Commissioner, a person presiding over a conference referred to in section 22, a prescribed authority referred to in section 23 or any of the members of a conciliation committee in the performance of any functions or the exercise of any powers under this Act.

  2. A person shall not-

    1. refuse to employ another person;
    2. dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from his employment;
    3. prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in his employment; or
    4. intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person, by reason that the other person-
    5. has made, or proposes to make, a complaint to the Commissioner;
    6. has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to the Commissioner;
    7. has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference referred to in section 22; or
    8. has appeared, or proposes to appear, before a prescribed authority referred to in section 23 to give evidence or produce documents.

Penalty: $500.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( I ) omit ‘an officer or employee’, substitute ‘a member of the staff’.

This amendment is consequential upon other matters which I have dealt with before, principally that the staff of the Commissioner be employed under the terms of the Public Service Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I ask for leave to move circulated amendments (15) and ( 16) to clause 30 together.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HOWARD:

-I move-

In sub-clause (1), omit ‘, a prescribed authority referred to in section 23’.

In sub-clause (2) omit paragraph (h).

Once again these amendments are consequential to the pattern of amendments moved by the Opposition to this Bill. The Opposition’s amendments do not contemplate resort to the prescribed authority referred to in clause 23. In fact, the Opposition sought the deletion of the whole of clause 23. In addition the Opposition as a consequential amendment seeks the deletion of paragraph (h) of sub-clause (2) of clause 30 as it contemplates that proceedings before the prescribed authority referred to in clause 23 are not part of the type of procedure that the Opposition would want under this legislation.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government opposes the amendments moved by the Opposition and does so for the reasons that I have given earlier.

Amendments negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 33- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 34.

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner shall be paid out of the moneys of the Commissioner such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but, if no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause ( 1), omit ‘out of the moneys of the Commissioner’. This amendment is consequential on other amendments which have been passed already by the Committee. In this case, the amendment flows from the decision that separate financial arrangements for the Commissioner will not now be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 39- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40.

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner is an approved authority for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1922-1974.
  2. For the purposes of sub-sections 4 (3A) and (4) of the Superannuation Act 1922-1974, the Commissioner shall be deemed to be required, by the terms of his appointment, to give the whole of his time to the duties of his office.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause ( 1 ).

This is a consequential amendment flowing from the decision that separate financial arrangements for the Commissioner will not now be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41.

  1. The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Attorney-General, appoint such officers and engage such employees as he thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.
  2. The terms and conditions of employment of persons appointed or engaged under sub-section ( 1 ) shall be such as are, with the approval of the Attorney-General, determined by the Commissioner.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: ‘41. (1) The staff of the Commissioner shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1974. ‘(2) The Commissioner has all the powers of, or exercisable by, a Permanent Head under the Public Service Act 1922-1974 so far as those powers relate to the branch of the Australian Public Service comprising the staff referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) as if that branch were a separate Department of the Australian Public Service. ‘(3) For the purposes of sub-sections 25 (5) and (6) of the Public Service Act 1922-1974, the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Permanent Head. ‘(4) Notwithstanding sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, on terms and conditions approved by the Public Service Board, engage persons, not being persons appointed or employed as mentioned in that sub-section to provide services for the Commissioner. ‘.

The purpose of the amendment is self-evident. It has been adverted to in many of the contributions by honourable members. It relates to the staff of the Commissioner and brings them under the provisions of the Public Service Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42.

If a person appointed as Commissioner or as an officer of the Commissioner was, immediately before his appointment, an officer of the Australian Public Service or a person to whom the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applied-

  1. he retains his existing and accruing rights;
  2. for the purpose of determining those rights, his service as Commissioner or as an officer shall be taken into account as if it were service in the Australian Public Service; and
  3. the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applies as if this Act and this section had been specified in the Schedule to that Act.
Mr Enderby:

– It might be convenient to take my next 2 amendments, Nos (19) and (20) on the circulated list, together.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit ‘or as an officer of the Commissioner’. In paragraph (b), omit ‘or as an officer’.

These amendments are consequential upon the staff of the Commissioner coming within the terms of the Public Service Act.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 to 48- by leave- taken together.

Clauses negatived.

Clause 49.

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner may, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him, delegate to an officer or employee of the Commissioner all or any of his powers under this Act, except this power of delegation.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (1), omit ‘an officer or employee’, substitute ‘a member of the staff.

This, too, is a consequential amendment flowing from the decision that the staff of the Commissioner should be employed under the terms of the Public Service Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 50 to 52- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 53.

  1. Jurisdiction is conferred on the Superior Court of Australia to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings instituted in that Court under this Act or removed into that Court under sub-section (4).
  2. Any civil or criminal proceedings instituted in a court (other than the Supreme Court) of a State, or in a court of a Territory, involving a matter arising under this Act may, at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment, be removed into the Superior Court of Australia under an order of the Superior Court of Australia, which may, upon the application of any party or the Attorney-General for sufficient cause shown, be made on such terms as the Superior Court of Australia thinks fit.
  3. When any such order for removal is made, such documents, if any, relating to the proceedings as are filed on record in the court of the State or Territory shall be transmitted to the registry of the Superior Court in the State or Territory concerned or, if there is more than one registry in that State or Territory, to such registry as is directed by the order.
  4. Where any proceedings are removed into the Superior Court of Australia under the provisions of sub-section (4), the Superior Court of Australia shall proceed as if the proceedings had been originally commenced in that Court.
  5. If in any proceedings removed into the Superior Court of Australia under this section it appears to the satisfaction of the Superior Court of Australia at any time after the removal that the proceedings do not really and substantially involve a matter arising under this Act, the Superior Court of Australia shall not proceed any further in the proceedings but shall remit the proceedings to the court from which they were removed and make such order as to costs as is just, and, where an order is so made remitting proceedings, any documents relating to the proceedings shall be returned to the court from which they were received.

  6. If a question of law concerning a matter arising under this Act arises in proceedings instituted in a court (other than the Supreme Court) of a State or in a court of a Territory-

    1. the court shall, if so directed at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment by an order of the Superior Court of Australia (which may, upon the application of any party or of the Attorney-General for sufficient cause shown, be made on such terms as the Superior Court of Australia thinks fit) refer the question to the Superior Court of Australia for the consideration of the Superior Court of Australia; and
    2. where a question is so referred, the Superior Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question.
Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-My first amendment seeks to delete sub-clause ( 1 ) from clause 53.1 think the reason for the Opposition’s attitude regarding this would be self-evident both from the other amendments we have moved during the course of this debate, and our attitude to the establishment of the Superior Court of Australia. The amendment which the Opposition sought to clause 26 would have made it clear that any civil proceedings instituted under the Act in the form which the Opposition wanted, would have been proceedings which could have been instituted in any court of competent jurisdiction. The situation could have been accommodated without the inclusion of sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 53.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is it the wish of the honourable member to move amendments 17 and 18 together?

Mr HOWARD:

-Yes, Mr Deputy Chairman. I am indebted to you for drawing that to my attention. I move:

Omit sub-clause (1).

Omit sub-clauses (4) to (8) (inclusive).

The remarks which I have made on so many occasions during this debate regarding the pattern of the Opposition’s amendments must once again be made in respect of this clause. I repeat the remarks I made earlier regarding the Opposition’s attitude to the Superior Court of Australia. It is not a court which is yet in existence. The establishment of the court is opposed for very good reasons by the Opposition. It seems that having regard both to the nature of the amendments we have moved so far to this legislation, and to our attitude to the Superior Court of Australia, the existence of sub-clauses (4) and (8) are unnecessary.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The Government cannot accept the amendments proposed principally for the reasons I have already given and I need not canvass them again. As to the Superior Court Bill and the reference to it, the honourable member for Bennelong would be aware that clause 54 provides on an interim basis the exercise of jurisdiction by the Australian Industrial Court. One would certainly hope that in one form or another the Opposition some day will support the Superior Court concept. The Government frankly admits that it likes its own courts.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 54 (Exercise of Jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court).

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The Opposition seeks to omit clause 54 in its entirety. I am indebted to the Attorney-General for drawing my attention to the interim jurisdiction conferred by clause 54. 1 merely repeat the remarks I made on speaking to clause 53, that I appreciate the desire of the Attorney-General for his Government to have its own courts. The attitude of the Opposition to the establishment of the Superior Court and, of necessity, the vesting upon the Industrial Court interim jurisdiction pending the establishment of the Superior Court is well known. There are very strong and valid reasons why jurisdiction of this nature ought not necessarily be exercised by a Superior Court. I do not want in any sense to open up the debate on the merits or otherwise of the establishment of a Superior Court, but given the attitude of the Opposition to the establishment of that Court it follows as a natural consequence that the conferring of interim jurisdiction on the Australian Industrial Court pending the establishment of the Superior Court, that our opposition is a logical consequence of our attitude to the establishment of the Superior Court.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– We oppose the proposal. I must say to my good friend, the honourable member for Bennelong, that we find it very difficult to accept the argument that the Industrial Court in some way or another is unacceptable to him. If the honourable member wishes to take that point of view it is a matter for himself but it seems to us to be incomprehensible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 55.

  1. A person who-

    1. has instituted, or proposes to institute, a proceeding in a court under sub-section 25 (4) or is, in a proceeding instituted in a court by the Commissioner under sub-section 25 ( 1), joined by the court as a party to the proceeding in accordance with sub-section 25(3); or
    2. b) has done, or is alleged to have done, an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted in a court under sub-section 25 ( 1 ) or (4), may apply to the Attorney-General for a grant of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding.

  2. Where an application is made by a person under subsection ( 1 ), the Attorney-General, or an officer of the Australian Public Service authorized in writing by the AttorneyGeneral, may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorize the grant by Australia to the person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General or officer determines, such legal or financial assistance in relation to the proceeding as the AttorneyGeneral or officer determines.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) A person who-

is required to appear at a proceeding before a prescribed authority under section 23;

has instituted, or proposes to institute, a proceeding in a court under sub-section 25 (4) or is, in a proceeding instituted in a court by the Commissioner under sub-section 25 (1), joined by the court as a party to the proceeding in accordance with sub-section 25(3);

has done, or is alleged to have done, an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted in a court under sub-section 25 ( 1 ) or (4); or

d ) is prosecuted for an offence against this Act, may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding.

Where an application is made by a person under subsection ( 1 ), the Attorney-General, or an officer of the Australian Public Service authorized in writing by the AttorneyGeneral, may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorize the provision by Australia to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General or officer determines, of such legal or financial assistance in relation to the proceeding as the Attorney-General or officer determines.

The purpose of the amendment is to omit clause 55 and to substitute a new clause which is set out in the amendment. The intent is clear. It seeks to expand the concept or the facility of legal aid which is offered by the Bill. The amendment, in its original form, was restricted to legal aid in civil proceedings. Probably legal aid might well have been available on application from some other source, but it was deemed appropriate to extend in a statute the availability of legal aid beyond civil proceedings and to criminal proceedings.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It would appear, and I think it should be stated here, that if the amendment moved by the Minister is approved, then the amendment standing in the name of the honourable member for Bennelong would not be valid.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I propose to move amendment No. 20 standing in my name.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I am pointing out that if the Minister’s amendment is approved, then it would be necessary for the honourable member to address himself to the remarks of the Minister.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

– I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I do not think there is very much disagreement in regard to clause 55. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment was to expand the legal aid provisions of the legislation. The Attorney-General is of the same mind, and I am therefore minded to accept the amendment moved by the Attorney-General and to withdraw the amendment to clause 55 standing in my name.

Substitute clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56.

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the AttorneyGeneral a report of the operations of the Commissioner during that year, together with financial statements in respect of that year in such form as the Treasurer approves.

  2. Before furnishing financial statements to the AttorneyGeneral, the Commissioner shall submit them to the Auditor-General, who shall report to the Attorney-General-

    1. a ) whether the statements are based on proper accounts and records;
    2. whether the statements are in agreement with the accounts and records;
    3. whether the receipt and expenditure of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets, by the Commissioner during the year have been in accordance with this Act; and
    4. as to such other matters arising out of the statements as the Auditor-General considers should be reported to the Attorney-General.
  3. The Attorney-General shall cause the report and financial statements of the Commissioner, together with the report of the Auditor-General, to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after their receipt by the Attorney-General.
Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: 56 (1) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the

Attorney-General a report of the operations of the Commissioner during that year.

The Attorney-General shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him. ‘

This amendment is a consequential one flowing from the decision that separate financial arrangements for the Commissioner will not now be necessary.

Substitute Clause 56 agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-As a matter of clarification, I wish to direct attention to paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Schedule. This is an important paragraph because it is referred to in clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 8 itself refers to clause 10. The Bill is drawn in a very peculiar way, if I may say so. Obviously the intention behind this is to cure a possible defect which might arise from the operation of clause 10. As clause 10 stands at the moment, it would be impossible to pass a law or maintain a law which gave special privileges to our Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders. I do not think that is the intention of the Government. I think that the Government means to maintain the special discrimination in favour of our Aboriginal people which is contained in some of the legislation, some of which I introduced into the House, and some of which subsequently has been introduced. I am wondering whether the drawing of the Bill actually achieves the purpose. Clause 8 of the Bill states:

  1. This Part does not apply to, or in relation to the application of, special measures to which paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Convention applies . . .

That is the paragraph in the Schedule to which I have referred. That is drawn in a rather peculiar way. I am by no means certain that it would cover all the things that I believe the Government means to cover and that certainly should be covered. This is purely a question of drafting. I am not trying to change the intention in any way. It is perhaps a little late in the debate to be bringing up a matter of technical drafting of this character, but I am suggesting that the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) might care to look at this matter and make certain that the drafting carries out the intention that I believe he intends to be carried out. I am not going to go into the matter in detail, but I am a little worried by the proviso at the end of paragraph 4, which reads:

  1. . provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Here again there would be no difference between the Government and, I think, the Oppositioncertainly myself- in relation to the intention, but I am worried as to the interpretation that might be placed on this proviso in a court of law if it had to take it into account in relation to an appeal under clause 10 of the Bill by a person of a non-Aboriginal race who was claiming the special rights that are given to the people of the Aboriginal race under legislation. It is purely a question of drafting, but the Government might like to have another look at it.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I support the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). The point he has raised also has been brought to my attention. The honourable member says that he does not believe that it is the intention of the Government to bring about the situation to which he has adverted. It certainly is not our intention to deprive certain groups of any special advantages that in our opinion they quite properly have been given. I drew attention to this matter in my contribution to the second reading debate. I would like to add my voice to that of the honourable member for Mackellar. Certain groups within the community are concerned about that proviso. As the Bill is presently drawn there is, I believe, some possibility of a difficulty in interpretation arising. I commend the honourable member’s suggestion to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby).

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I shall be brief in my remarks, Mr Deputy Chairman. I thank both the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for raising this matter. It has been the subject of considerable study by parliamentary counsel and the Solicitor-General. As both honourable gentlemen would appreciate, the Convention was not drawn by us; it is a treaty to which we subscribe. One has to take it into account and not go beyond it. That does pose problems, particularly with laws of the various State parliaments, in that one has to try to take into account laws of which one might not approve and yet at the same time not bring about the result that both honourable members have in mind. We are in complete agreement on that. The matter will continue to be studied.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (By Mr Enderby)- by leaveproposed:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I will be very brief in my remarks. I would like to define my attitude to this Bill at this stage since I did not get an opportunity, owing to the application of the gag, to speak to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I think that everybody on both sides of the House approves of the objectives of this BUI- I certainly approve of themwhich are not to maintain a stance of racial superiority. But I will say that I deplore the nature of this Bill. I believe that the Bill as a whole will do more harm than good and that it will be counterproductive to what it intends to achieve. That has happened with similar legislation introduced in, for example, Great Britain and the United States of America- legislation which was brought in with the very best of motives. I am not trying in any way, to impugn the motives behind the introduction of this legislation. I am simply saying that I believe that, by trying to pretend that certain things do not exist and by trying to pretend that the community is different from what it is the Government will cause more tension than it will alleviate. I believe that in that sense- I want to be quite precise in this respectthe Bill will be counter-productive. I believe that this Bill, unhappily, will cause more racial tension than it will alleviate and that it will add to the very problems that it is meant to solve. In saying that I do not in any way differ with the motives behind it or the objectives that it sets out to achieve.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-Like the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who has just spoken, I want to express my complete disgust with the way in which this Bill has been processed through the House. I do not believe that by an Act of Parliament one can carry out basic reforms relating to individual attitudes or reforms of a moral or sociological nature. That can be done only if the population is educated to recognise that all people are born equal and that all people should have equal opportunities to be treated in exactly the same way. I do not think that the Government can do anything but create greater difficulties than those attempting to be cured by introducing a Bill of this kind. I would have spoken on this matter at greater length and with greater emotion than I am doing at the moment if I had had the opportunity to speak to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but I was not able to do so.

I have looked through the Bill itself and found that there are so many clauses of it that are distasteful to me and that would be distasteful to anyone who believes in a democratic system of government that I must express to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) my displeasure with it and my disbelief that a man who parades as one who likes a democratic system of government and who believes in people themselves would want to introduce a measure of this kind. I will do all I can in the ensuing days to speak about the principles of the Bill whenever I get an opportunity to do so. I have in front of me a list of objections that I have to particular clauses of the Bill, but I cannot deal with them seriatum or in any great detail here today. But I do think that it is proper that in the debate on the motion for the third reading of the Bill I should, in a very generalised way, express my displeasure with this Bill and my view that anyone who believes in democracy ought to be ashamed of introducing this Bill in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Before I call the next speaker I think I ought to inform the House that the debate on the motion for the third reading of a Bill is limited strictly to the terms of the Bill. I have given a little latitude to the 2 speakers who have spoken to the motion already, but I do not intend to allow this debate to develop into the type of debate that would take place on the motion for the second reading of a Bill.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I want to make one point at this stage: I regret that there was not a free vote on this Bill and that more time was not given to debate the issues contained in the Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I think honourable members opposite are quite wrong in believing that no aspect of social reform flows from legislation as such. This Bill is directed towards the community in all sorts of ways- by law, by education and by influence. During the long history of parliamentary government many social changes have taken place only because parliaments have enacted legislation. The great deal of change that has occurred in the area of working conditions and so on is an example. I agree that there is a possibility of undemocratic practices which are against freedom of speech, as we would normally believe it to be, unless the Commissioner does his duty with a profound reverence for that freedom. But the facts are that the cause that this legislation furthers is of such note that we have to take those risks. I believe that it is a first class piece of legislation which is directed towards a major area of social reform.

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-in reply-I wish to reply very briefly to the remarks made by honourable gentlemen during the third reading stage of the Bill. I have to express complete disagreement with the remarks of the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). One would think that the common law has produced the answers to this problem. A number of honourable members on the opposite side spoke in glowing terms of the common law and its achievements in the second reading debate. No one is a greater admirer of the common law and the ways in which it can achieve progress than I am but it has been a dismal failure in terms of trying to give relief where racial discrimination exists.

I say this to those gentlemen who talk about a democratic society: Ask the oppressed peoples who sometimes have to survive in a democratic society; ask the Aborigines about a democratic society; ask those who are getting angry at being denied their rights. Those honourable gentlemen will get little patience from them. Do not blame legislation like this that has appeared around the world for the rising tide of racial anger that exists in the world. The legislation has been in response to that rising tide of racial anger.

My God, racial relations in the United States of America have been transformed, and transformed for the better, as a result of legislation in that country. I can remember my boyhood days when films portrayed negroes as monkeys. Those days are gone and negroes now stand in large measure with a certain dignity largely because of the Warren court and the way in which it was able to interpret the United States Constitution and apply that interpretation to legislation. With great respect, Mr Speaker, I ask honourable members opposite not to talk that nonsense.

Everyone has conceded that this is a serious attempt to do something about racial discrimination. Of course there will be difficulties associated with the legislation. We all appreciate that we cannot legislate in respect of a standard of attitude because this has to come from within the minds of people but the legislation can express the feelings of a civilised society. It can express the sense of outrage that a civilised society feels about discrimination of this sort where it exists. We can put the sanctions of the criminal law behind breaches of those standards.

Personally I am very pleased that the legislation is to be passed. I hope that it goes through the Senate. It seems likely that in one way or the other it will find its way into the High Court. I hope that it survives there too because it is very badly needed in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1416

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 February on motion by Mr Bryant:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The Opposition will oppose the amendments to this Bill, which of course has come back from the Senate, in the belief that the people who are directly involved, namely the members of the Aboriginal community living on the reserves in Queensland, do not want the legislation imposed upon them. Last year I and other members of the Opposition, and I am sure the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), who is sitting at the table, received numerous telegrams from council leaders opposing the provisions contained, from memory, in clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. The Minister might correct me if I am wrong.

Mr Bryant:

– I think you are right.

Mr HUNT:

-Thank you. This and other evidence was referred to during the debate on this Bill that took place in another place. Unfortunately the Government has declined to test the feeling of the Aboriginal people by referendum. This, of course, was requested of the Government by the Opposition in the Senate and by a number of Aboriginal people in Queensland. In the light of the Government’s refusal to take the issue to referendum the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council, as an elected body, requested and in fact pleaded with the Opposition to oppose the 2 clauses of this Bill that are in question. Those clauses, of course, deal with the right of entry on to the reserve in Queensland.

It would appear that the Government is not recognising the voice of the Advisory Council, a body which was elected by the Aboriginal people in Queensland. Of course, this poses the question: Does the Government really believe in self-determination for Aboriginal people or does it support a policy of achieving its objectives by undermining any authorities outside its own control? Clearly the Government does not believe in self-determination if this is to be the criterion or the test. If it did it would have adopted the Opposition ‘s suggestion which was not its own original suggestion but one that came from Aboriginal leaders who were living on the reserves in Queensland. If the Government had done so I am sure that it would have called for a referendum amongst the Aboriginal people concerned to determine the issue. But it did not accept this request.

The Government knows that the people of Queensland, black and white, do not trust its policies. It knows that the Aboriginal communities would vote ‘No * to the clauses in question. In the face of opposition from the Queensland Aborigines we witnessed the spectacle of the Government trying to force its will upon the people. The Aboriginal people do not want the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Canberra, and a South Australian based Minister for that matter, taking their decision-making powers away, powers that are vested in them to determine who in fact will come on to their reserves. Clearly they would prefer the Queensland Government and its department co-operating with them in determining the decisions in this matter.

So the dogmatic attitude of the Government is revealed when in the face of opposition and defeat in another place it persists in trying to restore the contentious clauses 6 and 7 to this Bill. These clauses take away from the elected Aboriginal councils their right to determine who shall visit their reserves. I want to read from a copy of a telegram on this matter sent to Senator Rae by Mr Les Stewart who is Chairman of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Council and of the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council. The telegram states:

On behalf of the Aboriginal Advisory Council I wish to strongly object to the present Bill before Parliament whereby present Councils will have no right to determine who visits and resides on their communities. We object to any new law which will take away our tribal right. We ask you to support us in every way to make sure we retain our rights. We assure you we have not even been consulted as to our views or wishes in regard to proposed new law. Further telegrams of protest sent to Prime Minister . . . Senators Cavanagh Lawrie Bonner Leader of the Opposition Mr Snedden and Mr Anthony Leader of the National Party.

I suppose nobody could say that Mr Stewart is an inconsequential person or a man of no significance. He is certainly one of the prominent leaders of the Aboriginal people in Queensland. I suppose it is true to say that in the European society a man’s house is his castle. In an Aboriginal society the environs of an Aboriginal community are an Aboriginal’s castle because clearly Aborigines enjoy living in communities and acting as communities. They believe in the exercise of communal responsibility and authority. Just as we claim and exercise the right as to who shall visit our homes, the Aborigines should have the right to determine who shall visit their reserves, indeed their communities. The Aboriginal people are more community minded in a communal sense than most European people are. This fact has not been registered by the Government in this legislation.

It does not matter a damn whether the Minister thinks the elected councils are appropriate bodies or not to make the determination as to who shall visit their communities. The point is that clearly the Aborigines themselves see thencouncils as their corporate voice. In characteristic pig-headed style the Government chooses to ignore the telegrams of protest from the Aboriginal people, its shocking defeat in the Queensland State election and its very poor vote amongst Aboriginal communities. For all the effort expended nobody could really say that the result in Queensland was terribly good from the Australian Labor Party’s point of view. It is a pity the Party did not try a bit harder to do a bit better. It is probably these sorts of things and this attitude that caused the electoral result in Queensland.

Surely the Government should be more responsive to the wishes of the people, certainly the Aboriginal people whom it is purporting to assist. In this proposal it has ignored the lack of support it has had from the Aboriginal people, the pleas by the only elected Aboriginal member of this Parliament, Senator Bonner, and the plea by the Opposition to ascertain by a poll among the Aboriginal people the wishes of the Aboriginal people before this arbitrary action is taken. In spite of the pleas by the elected Aboriginal councils the Government continued to proceed with these provisions- provisions taking away their authority as to who shall enter their reserves. I shall read a telegram that the Minister sent to Mr Les Stewart, the Chairman of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Reserve Council. The Minister at least responded to his telegram but I think we should know how the Minister responded to him. The telegram does not say ‘Dear Les ‘. It states:

Les, as prisoner on a reserve, you have no right to stop any Aboriginal from reuniting with their relatives. Support my Government in this and subsequent legislation and upon return of Cherbourg settlement to Aboriginals, with the right of ownership, you will have the right to decide who enters your private property. Cease being an agent of Petersen and fight for the rights and freedom of your people.

That is an incredible approach. Senator Bonner in another place said:

As my colleague Senator Rae said, how paternalistic can you be? The telegram was addressed to Les Stewart, a highly respected gentleman of the Aboriginal community of Cherbourg, a man who has done remarkably well for himself and for his family. He is not only respected at Cherbourg. He is respected wherever he goes. He is respected in Murgon and

Wondai. He is a man of high principles and integrity. Yet the Minister says to him:

Les, as a prisoner on a reserve -

Senator Bonner took great exception to this sort of approach from the Minister, and the Aboriginal people themselves also took exception to it. Therefore the Opposition cannot agree to the reinsertion of what was deleted by way of amendment in the Senate. Before it was amended the Bill removed the authority from the elected Aboriginal advisory councils to determine who shall enter their reserves. The Opposition regards the action of the Minister and the Government as a high-handed, impertinent and authoritarian act ignoring the wishes of the Aboriginal people and making a mockery of the Government’s policy of self-determination.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cross) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1418

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Bill is to re-establish the InterState Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Constitution, which states:

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

Honourable members will note that the Constitution refers to the trade and commerce provisions and laws made thereunder. However it is not the Government’s intention at this time for the Inter-State Commission to operate under these provisions other than in the field of transport. Hence the responsibility for introducing this Bill has been allocated to the Transport portfolio. I need hardly emphasise that transport is a wide and important activity. In 1972-73 it has been estimated that Government and private capital expenditure directly attributed to transport was of the order of $2,700m while current expenditure was approximately $2,200m. Recent figures will be considerably in excess of these amounts. The investment decisions which are made at the present time undoubtedly influence the overall character of personal, private and commercial transport for many decades ahead.

It is generally recognised that transport is a service function concerned with the efficient movement of people, freight and raw materials. Very few of these movements can, in fact, be completed with the use of only a single mode of transport and hence it is important that there is adequate co-ordination within, and between, the various modes of transport. But the history of transport in Australia is studded with examples of lack of co-ordination at many levels. I will mention 3 examples to illustrate my point. The differences in rail gauges is the most notable and long standing. Another is the differing approaches to road networks in the various regions, which we are endeavouring to rectify through road legislation. Then, again, approaches to vehicle dimensions and axle load limits are not standard. These are all instances of physical differences. There are other administrative and operational differences of equally serious concern.

Users of transport are often frustrated in attempting to obtain rectification of the problems they encounter. There is no single entity to which they can refer for positive assistance in the investigation of their complaints. Rather, they are faced with trying to obtain satisfaction from operator controlled organisations whose own interests are paramount. Furthermore, a great majority of the transport tasks require the use of more than one mode of transport and the user has a variety of operator organisations to deal with, compounding his difficulties. The Government has decided that these considerations call for the re-establishment of the Inter-State Commission. The deliberations which led to the drafting of the Constitution envisaged the role of the Commission as being complementary to Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary, and the existence of a body of such stature, with wide powers to deal with the interests of all parties involved in or affected by, transport has been a persuasive argument in leading the Government to this decision. (Quorum formed) Apart from one short period between 1913 and 1920, Australia has been without the Commission since Federation. It may well be that this omission is in itself one of the root causes of some of the major distortions which have occurred in the evolution of Australian transport.

The Inter-State Commission was first appointed in 1913 pursuant to the Inter-State Commission Act 1912. The powers given to the Inter-State Commission included powers of investigation over a very wide range of matters going well beyond matters relating to interstate trade or commerce and power to determine a great variety of disputes, including disputes as to preferences or disadvantages given or made by any State or by any common carrier in contravention of the Act or the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. The Commission was given wide powers to grant relief to the parties before it and was empowered to grant injunctions. In what is now known as the wheat case- New South Wales v. the Commonwealth ( 1915)-New South Wales appealed to the High Court from a decision of the Inter-State Commission. Section 73 of the Constitution provides for appeals from decisions of the Inter-State Commission on questions of law. The Commission held that the Wheat Acquisition Act 1914 of New South Wales was invalid as contravening section 92 of the Constitution. The High Court, by a majority, held that section 101. of the Constitution did not authorise the establishment of the Inter-State Commission as a court and therefore the provisions of Part V conferring judicial powers upon the Inter-State Commission were invalid.

The Inter-State Commission continued to exercise some investigatory functions for a limited period after the wheat case. However, by 1920 the appointments of commissioners had terminated by reason of resignation or lapse of time. The Act remained on the statute book until 1950 when it was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1950. 1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper containing the relevant extracts from the Constitution which relate to the InterState Commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Constitutional Provisions

The Inter-State Commission is referred to in the following sections of the Constitution:

  1. The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgements, decrees, orders, and sentences- (in) Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only: and the judgement of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive. 101. There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. 102. The Parliament may by any law with respect to trade or commerce forbid, as to railways, any preference or discrimination by any State, or by any authority constituted under a State, if such preference or discrimination is undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State; due regard being had to the financial responsibilities incurred by any State in connection with the construction and maintenance of its railways. But no preference or discrimination shall, within the meaning of this section, be taken to be undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State, unless so adjudged by the InterState Commission. 103. The members of the Inter-State Commission:

    1. Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council;
    2. Shall hold office for seven years, but may be removed within that time by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;
    3. Shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but such remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 104. Nothing in this Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the rate is deemed by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the development of any territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally to goods within the State and to goods passing into the State from other States.
Mr CHARLES JONES:

-This Bill does not cloak the Commission with judicial powers which the High Court found so objectionable with regard to the first Inter-State Commission. The provisions in the Bill are based on the InterState Commission being given adjudicatory, investigatory, arbitration and administration functions in respect of which it would be empowered to determine any necessary issues of fact, its decisions being appealable in matters of law to the High Court. Honourable members might be interested to know the range of issues the Inter-State Commission could deal with under the 4 broad headings to which I have referred. Dealing first with adjudication, which represents a decision making role of the Commission, the Constitution through sections 102 and 104 gives the Commission a clear role to adjudicate on railway rates. Thus it would be able to deal with situations similar to those revealed in the 1 972 Bland report of rates so set that interstate trade is disadvantaged compared with intrastate trade. A rail rate which is lower to a further port compared to the nearest port, which happens to be interstate, would certainly be a matter the Inter-State Commission would investigate and adjudicate upon.

This Bill gives the Inter-State Commission the power where it is equally sorely needed over all the other modes of transport and is not narrowly restricted to carrier operations. The efficient use of transport involves a proper understanding of the inter-relationships between the terminal, the way and the vehicular systems, and the Bill ensures that the Commission is free to investigate all relevant aspects of the transport task. Instances have been brought to my notice where practices and charges differ markedly between different transport users for apparently the same service. Examples of the matters brought to my notice are the preferential reservation of cargo space on ships, the provision of the same service at different rates, and variations in the availability of equipment.

The next heading is investigation, which is an exceedingly important function. It has 2 aspects. There is the investigation necessary before the Commission could reach a decision in an adjudication and the general investigation into broad industry or multi-modal issues which would generally result in recommendations. An example of a general investigation would be an assessment of the most appropriate mode to carry certain commodities in interstate trade. Thirdly, the expertise the Commission will acquire in the field of interstate transport will lead to requests that it act as an arbitrator between parties in dispute. For example, there could be a disagreement between Railways of Australia and freight forwarders over the rates to be charged for equipment. The Commission would be an appropriate body to arbitrate and it has power to enforce its decision. It would also be available to arbitrate on matters associated with the transfer of railway systems to the control of the Australian Government. Lastly the Commission’s administration function is designed to draw upon its expert knowledge of requirements in transport arising from its investigations. It would be useful in reviewing the effectiveness of expenditure which the Government has provided to overcome a particular transport deficiency- for example, the provision of rolling stock.

The procedure of the Commission will, of course, be established to a large extent in the light of experience as time goes on. However, the BUI establishes certain principles. The Commission will be accessible to the individual, the man in the street, the small private company and the big corporation, any of whom may have an issue or a complaint to raise. I should stress at this point that statutory authorities of either the Australian or State governments will also have access to the Commission. The Commission will be able to launch an investigation on its own initiative or in response to a complaint. It can receive requests for investigations directly from the States. It is its judgment alone whether the investigation will be launched.

The third means by which an investigation may begin is upon direction by the Minister. Provision is made for investigations of the Commission to be amplified should circumstances require, at the direction of the Minister.

Proposed investigations must be notified to the public. The Commission will be able to sit as a commission on the investigation or authorise one of its members, or member of the staff, or another authorised person to take evidence on behalf of the Commission and to furnish a report on the evidence. Witnesses appearing before the Commission will have the usual immunities. The Bill is designed to ensure that the private citizen may be heard. Upon assessment of the facts the Commission may, according to its terms of reference, make a recommendation to the Government or proceed to adjudicate the issue and make an order which will have the force of law. The High Court will have jurisdiction on appeals on matters of law as the Commission’s decisions are final on matters of fact.

Under clause 16 prosecutions can be instituted in the High Court for contravention of or failure to comply with an order of the Commission. Also, the Attorney-General may apply to the High Court for an injunction to restrain a person or body from contravening the Act, including orders made by the Commission under the Act. In the event that a State government were to fail to comply with an order, an injunction from the High Court could be sought if necessary under this clause. The Australian Government would of course be bound by the orders of the Commission. Because of the Commission’s special stature and expected capabilities it is well suited to undertake tasks extending beyond the investigatory and adjudicatory role to which I have referred. The Government will ask the Commission to report from time to time on multimodal transport issues. For example, the Government will want advice on the most suitable modes for the carriage of various types of freight and raw materials between interstate centres to determine rail, sea, road and air infrastructure requirements. The Commission, with its wide investigatory powers, will be an expert body well suited to provide advice to governments on such planning issues, and the Australian Government would expect that State governments will also be anxious to avail themselves of its services.

The re-establishment of the Commission will, therefore, be compatible with our policy and a very useful source of advice. Indeed, during our period in office, and lacking an Inter-State Commission, we have been obliged to establish individual commissions to inquire into particular transport matters where advice was required. As examples I instance the commissions of inquiry into the maritime industry and into transport disabilities in Tasmania. Such inquiries could in future be referred to the Inter-State Commission. This ability to refer would also obviate the administrative exercise involved in setting up individual commissions of inquiry.

To demonstrate the consistency and logic of our approach I will briefly outline the key elements of our transport policy. The policy is based on the belief that efficient transport can only be achieved where each mode is used for the task for which it is most suited. We believe that the beneficiaries and the users of transport should pay for the cost of that transport. Naturally there will be occasions when transport should be used to achieve other social or economic aims but if this is to be done the cost of achieving those aims through transport should be clearly known, for those social and economic aims are direct beneficiaries of the transport system. A national transport approach is abolutely necessary if we are to meet the needs of the Australian community and permit the proper development of this country.

The Government has amalgamated the 2 former major transport portfolios under the one Minister. This has brought together the former Departments of Transport and Civil Aviation together with Government’s transport operating authorities, Qantas Airways Ltd, TransAustralia Airlines, the Australian National Line and Comrail, and the Bureaus of Roads and Transport Economics. We propose to have an integrated transport budget and at the end of this year our financial assistance for roads and urban transport will be combined in one piece of transport financial assistance legislation for the period commencing July 1977. We have already initiated new roads legislation with particular emphasis on national highways, export and commercial roads and urban freeways. We also are preparing a proposal for the establishment of a Transport Accident Investigation Authority to take over the functions of courts of marine inquiry and other like matters. Honourable members are also aware of our intentions in respect of the Road Safety and Standards Authority.

Apart from the major roles to which I have referred, the Bill provides for a possible interstate licensing function by the Commission should circumstances warrant in the light of experience and the passage of appropriate legislation. The possible licensing areas described in the Bill include aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipelines. It is not proposed that the Commission would set the safety standards or undertake the technical judgments required, but it would take note of the judgments of the appropriate authority. I have already referred to our intention to establish a Transport Accident Investigation Authority and accordingly it is, of course, inappropriate to allocate a transport accident investigation function to the Inter-State Commission.

Honourable members will see that this Bill ensures that after a lapse of 50 years the InterState Commission will play the key role which is identified for it in the Constitution. The Government will complement the work of the Commission by continuing to pursue national transport policies. These influence and respond to the social and economic needs and objectives of both the private and public sectors. The Government will continue to provide such terminal, way and vehicular services as are appropriate for provision by governments and to establish and maintain operational standards. The Government will, of course, continue to encourage and promote socially and economically desirable transport developments and innovations.

The Prices Justification Act and the Trade Practices Act both overlap into the ambit of the Inter-State Commission. It is the Government’s view that the Inter-State Commission, because of its unique stature arising from the Constitution must be supreme. Such provision has been made in the Bill. But this provision will only need to come into operation if there is any conflict between the orders of the Inter-State Commission and either of those Acts. Otherwise those Acts will continue to be administered in the present manner.

These proposals seek to eliminate unnecessarily rigid procedures which tend to have been adopted in the commissions of some other countries that we have studied. The Bill will permit the Commission to adopt pricing guidelines to allow flexibility to operators of transport systems who are subject to its provisions. The Bill also eliminates the need for repetitive filing of rates.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an explanatory statement on the detail of the provisions of the Bill. It sets out the intentions and the objectives of each section.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The Minister will realise that leave is granted subject to the document being able to be printed and subject to its length. I have not seen the document so I do not know what the position is.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is a document of, I think, about 5 pages. It contains quite a considerable amount of very important information which for obvious reasons is not read into the Bill. I believe that it should appear in the second reading speech. The honourable member for Gippsland, the spokesman for the Opposition on these matters, agrees with this course.

Mr SPEAKER:

-We think that the Government Printer most probably can incorporate it. (The document read as follows)-

page 1422

NOTES ON BILL: INTER-STATE COMMISSION

The bill is divided into six parts- Part 1, Preliminary; Part II, Constitution of the Inter-State Commission; Part III, Regulation of, and Powers of Commission in relation to, Trade and Commerce; Part IV, Investigations by Commission; Part V, Administrative Provisions relating to the Commission, and Part VI, Miscellaneous.

Part I incorporates five interpretative and clarifying clauses as to the operation of the Commission.

In Pan II, provision is made for a President and four other members of the Commission who will be of senior status. Qualifications called for are experience at a high level in industry, commerce, economics, law, public administration or some other field of substantial relevance. Salaries are specified in Part V.

In Part III, Clause 9 exercises the power conferred on the Parliament by Section 102 of the Constitution. It forbids preferences or discrimination by a State by means of railways where adjudged undue and unreasonable by the Commission. The saving provisions of Sections 102 and 104 of the Constitution that regard shall be had to the financial obligations and developmental responsibilities of a State are preserved in Clauses 9 and 12.

Clause 10 prohibits undue and unreasonable preferences and discriminations in interstate and overseas transport in all transport modes, where so adjudged by the Commission.

Clause 1 1 provides that the terms and conditions on which a service by way of or in relation to interstate transport is provided shall be reasonable and just. The clause broadens the base provided by Clauses 9 and 10 for the work of the Commission.

By virtue of Clause 13, regulations may authorise the Commission to exercise statutory powers of other authorities or tribunals under any trade and commerce law, subject to the specified conditions. This clause is intended to cater for any future requirements that may arise.

Clause 14 sets forth the powers of the Commission to hold investigations, which the Government sees as the essential first step in the process leading to adjudications.

A wide range of subject matter could be investigated, including: any matters relevant to, or affected by, the provisions of ‘ the Constitution relating to trade and commerce (including matters relating to the operation and effect of laws and practices of the States) with a view to considering the necessity for new laws, or changes to existing laws, of Australia under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce: any matters in respect of which an adjudication by the Commission is relevant to the operation of the provisions of this bill; any matters relevant to the operation of Clause 1 1; and any matters in respect of which the Commission is authorised to exercise powers in pursuance of Clause 1 3.

Other parts of Clause 14 provide that the Commission may exercise its powers to hold an investigation on its own initiative or at the direction of the Minister, who may also extend an investigation by the Commission. The Commission shall conduct an investigation whenever it considers that this is in the public interest. Any person, including’ a State, may request the Commission to exercise those powers.

There is provision through sub-Clause 14(9) for publication of the Commission’s reports, findings and recommendations.

Sub-Clause 14(10) contains the basis for issuance by the Commission of pricing guidelines, which are also discussed in connexion with the Commission ‘s Orders in Clause 1 6.

Sub-Clause 14(11) provides that a finding of fact by the Commission, following an investigation will be conclusive for the purpose of its Orders.

Clause IS gives the Commission a potentially useful power to arbitrate, with the consent of the persons concerned, on any matter relevant to, or affected by, the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.

Powers of the Commission to make orders are provided by Clause 16; and under Sub-Clause 16 (3) the Commission will have power to make orders if necessary following action pursuant to Sub-Clause 14 ( 10), that is to say, in regard to pricing guidelines. An order of the Commission will have effect notwithstanding anything in any law of Australia or of a State, any act or thing done under such a law, or any contract. Substantial penalties are provided for non-compliance with the Commission’s orders. Jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court to hear and determine any prosecution, application or other proceeding and that jurisdiction will be exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court.

Clause 17 provides for other powers of the Commission including, but not limited to, the issuance of licences or requirement of the Commission’s consent in regard to the engaging in, or the use of aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipelines in inter-state transport. This clause is intended to cover any future requirements, when further legislation may be needed.

Under Part IV, Procedure at Investigations, beginning at Clause 18, the Commission is required to give public notice of its investigations.

The Commission would be empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and to take evidence on oath or affirmation. As a general rule, evidence would be taken in public but the Commission may decide, subject to the regulations, to take confidential evidence in private.

Remuneration and allowances of five members of the Commission are stipulated in Part V. Clause 26 provides that the President will receive a salary of $41,000 per annum, which is equivalent to a Justice of the High Court; and other members a salary of $35,000 which is equivalent to a Judge. Clause 32 provides that a member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office without the consent of the Minister.

By virtue of Clause 33, three members will form a quorum at a meeting of the Commission.

Part VI deals with Miscellaneous provisions.

Transport pricing would be looked at by the Inter-State Commission as well as by the Prices Justification Tribunal. In cases where differences arise Clause 34 provides that the conclusions of the Inter-State Commission shall prevail.

Clause 34 also provides that the Inter-State Commission’s approvals will prevail in the area of trade practices. This will be an ultimate power which would not remove the presumption that the restrictive practices legislation will apply in the transport industry.

It is envisaged that the Inter-State Commission will be able to draw upon existing organisations of the Australian Public Service for much of the senior support it will need in its investigations. However, provision will be made for a small secretariat in the Commission. Clause 35 provides that staff necessary to assist the Commission shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1974. Sub-Clause 35(4) allows the President to engage other persons (such as consultants or assessors) to provide services or perform functions for, or to furnish advice to, the Commission.

Other machinery provisions are in Clause 38, which provides protection of members, representatives and witnesses and Clause 39 which will enable the Commission to authorize, if the need arises, a member of the Commission, a member of the staff or a person engaged under Sub-Clause 35 (4) to take evidence on behalf of the Commission and furnish a report on the evidence so taken.

Clause 40 provides for an annual report to be tabled in Parliament, which must include particulars of Ministerial directions, and Clause 41 provides for the making of regulations.

I commend the Bill and remind honourable members that it will bring into effect a body which is specifically provided for in the Constitution, one which has been said to be in the bond of the Federal partnership agreement and .one whose absence has been sorely missed over a long period.

Debate (on motion by Mr Nixon) adjourned.

page 1423

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I rise to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1975. 1 do this because I believe that the stage has now been reached in Queensland and elsewhere throughout Australia at which all discriminatory laws against the Aboriginal or Island people should be removed and at which the normal laws in this country that protect people who might in some way be disadvantaged could apply to them to no more or less a degree than they apply to other Australians. I want to express my regret and disappointment that the Queensland Government on this question has been so inflexible. I would like to make the point that the legislation that we put forward now is not merely an initiative of the Labor Government which was elected on 2 December 1 972. It also gives effect to the attitudes expressed and the negotiations made by Mr Gorton, the right honourable member for Higgins, and Mr McMahon, the right honourable member for Lowe, when each was Prime Minister of this country.

It has been the view of Commonwealth governments for a substantial period of time that discriminatory laws that affect Aborigines should be removed. I regret that the Queensland Government has been very slow to remove some of these discriminatory laws. This legislation, seen against the background of the racial discrimination Bills and other legislation which the Government has introduced or proposes to introduce, is designed to remove from the Queensland legislation certain discriminatory laws or certain discriminatory sections of existing laws. I refer to the Aborigines Act of 1971, the Torres Strait Islanders Act of 1971 and to the regulations made under those Acts. The relationships between this Government and the State governments in relation to Aboriginal affairs have been complex. None of us pretends that the future of the Aboriginal people lies in the legislation carried by this Parliament. I would think that given the fact that we probably face a generation of legislation which positively discriminates in favour of Aborigines and Islanders, in the long term the needs of the Aboriginal and Island people of this country will be met by those Commonwealth and State government Acts and departments that service the needs and requirements of all of the other people in the Australian community. But that is in the future.

In the short term this Government, succeeding as it did the Government before it, can take some pride and satisfaction from the fact that it has given a lot more urgency and a much higher priority to these things than the former Government. Leaving that aside, I state that we have all accepted in this House the fact that we need positive programs of discrimination in favour of the Aboriginal and Island people to overcome the disabilities from which they suffer in order that perhaps a generation from now all people in this country may be equal. We reject the concept that all people are equal today. One has only to go to an Aboriginal reserve to realise this. Members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs have been to Aboriginal reserves during the recent parliamentary recess. Anyone with an interest in Aboriginal affairs needs to go on to an Aboriginal reserve from time to time to realise the substandard and degrading circumstances in which many people live in every State of the Commonwealth and in some parts of our Northern Territory. There is a great leeway to be made up. It is not a question of money alone. It is very much a question of the personnel who are available. But the measure that we have before us tonight involves a question of law. I would like to make some reference to clause 3 of the Bill which gives the definition of the term ‘Islander’. It states in part: ‘Islander’ means a person who is a member of the race to which Torres Strait Islanders belong;

I would like to point out to the House that there are people on islands in the Torres Strait who are not members of the race to which Torres Strait Islanders belong and to whom the Queensland legislation, that is the Torres Strait Islands Act of 1971, applies. After Federation a number of people of Pacific Island descent were resettled in the Torres Strait and they live there today. They come under the umbrella of the Queensland legislation but they do not regard themselves as Torres Strait Islanders and they are not regarded as being Torres Strait Islanders in the Torres Strait. But they ought to be covered by the legislation that is before the House at this time.

This is a fairly simple Bill. It deals with the management of property. It is designed to ensure that any property in Queensland of an Aboriginal or Islander shall not be managed by any other person without the consent of the Aboriginal or Islander concerned except insofar as the general law in Queensland for the management of property applies without regard to race, colour or national or ethnic origins of persons. In Queensland we have a Public Curator Office. It is headed by a person called the Public Curator and the Office has been in existence since 1 9 1 6. It is one of the notable achievements of the Ryan Government, the first substantive Labor Government in Queensland. It looks after the property of disadvantaged persons, people who by virtue of the fact that they happen to be in prison, ill in hospital, in a special hospital or by reason of senility or some other disability are unable to manage their own affairs. This paragraph puts forward a reasonable proposition that no person’s property should be managed without his consent excepting in circumstances of senility or inability to determine his own affairs. It seems to me that this is a reasonable proposition to advance.

Clause 6 ensures that the right of privacy of householders on reserves shall not be breached unless the same conditions apply as would apply if those premises were not on a reserve. I think one really has to understand what happens on an Aboriginal reserve, where the manager has wide sweeping powers and where- in Queensland - members of the so-called native police, who are by and large untrained people, act as an arm of the manager in the enforcement of discipline. The police are able to enter a house on a reserve if they suspect that the people there have alcohol or if they suspect that in that house is a person who is not legally present on the reserve. I will deal with that a little later on.

This portion of the Bill enshrines in our law the principle to which all of us in this House adherethat an Englishman’s home is his castle or, if I can transpose that, that an Australian’s home is his castle- that no-one can enter a person’s home without a warrant, in accordance with the appropriate State legislation, approved by a justice of the peace which suggests that some person who is wanted for a particular crime is there or that there is something that appertains to that dwelling which suggests that a breach of the peace is about to take place. We all know the common law. This provision is designed to ensure that people who live on Aboriginal reserves in Queensland have the same right to privacy as any other person in the Australian community. What member of this House could object to that?

Clause 7 deals with legal proceedings and provides for an appeal to a magistrates court or elsewhere against a decision made by a court established for a reserve. Again, one has to look at the courts on the reserves. We all have been brought up with the concept of trial by jury under which a person in our society can be tried by his peers. The definition of trial by one’s peers of course differs a lot from the thinking of the people who drew up the Magna Carta but the principle is sound and, notwithstanding that it has been enacted now for 760 years or more, it is one that commends itself to all the people of Australia who believe in freedom and liberty.

If one were to look at the Queensland Aborigines Act of 1 97 1 or the Torres Strait Islanders Act of 1971 and the regulations made under them one would think that they provide an eminently sensible system of justice. I believe it could be an eminently sensible system of justice if people on the reserves were properly trained as justices of the peace to carry out their duties. Some of my colleagues and I have been on some of these reserves and have looked at the court records. We found that by and large the punishment inflicted is a fine of $ 10 or 1 4 days imprisonment. A person either gets off or has a certain time in detention if the offences under the regulations made under the relevant Act are regarded as having been committed.

There is a problem here. It is not a simple problem. Some of these reserves are in isolated places. Under the protective legislation that was introduced by former Labor governments in Queensland people had the protection only of a visiting magistrate. But it was never quite as simple as that. If one lived on an island in the Torres Strait or an isolated reserve in the Cape York Peninsula or elsewhere one’s access to justice depended on the extent to which the manager of the reserve would facilitate transport and the like for one to appeal to the visiting magistrate or to some other authority. I would hope that the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs properly trains the justices of the peace who serve as magistrates on the reserves. I believe that they should be properly trained in the concept of common law. I am a justice of the peace and I daresay that many other people here are. But most people who are justices of the peace regard their duties as signing documents and the like. Very few, like members of this House, would have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with the law, which in certain circumstances they might be required to interpret.

Against this background, where people are not trained to interpret the law properly, we need this clause which provides for the right of appeal. The previous Government, when my friend the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, supported Aboriginal legal services which were designed to ensure that Aborigines were protected when they were charged in any court in the nation. We have expanded that service and we all pay tribute to him for the foundation he laid. He would have been interested to hear some of the people at the meeting of the National Aboriginal Consultative Council in Townsville recently paying a tribute to him, which I endorse. But not enough is being done. There is a need for the proper training of people who serve as magistrates on the Queensland reserves. Given the fact that that proper training does not exist now, there is a necessity for this right of appeal because for various reasons people can be the subject of injustices.

Time is creeping up on me and I cannot give examples. I could give examples of decisions that I know to have been made on Aboriginal or island reserves in Queensland which have been unjust. I must say in fairness that I have seen decisions where a person has committed an offence against the regulations which in the outside community would have incurred a much greater penalty. But that is not what this proposal buys into. The Bill before us gives the right of appeal. Surely no member of this House could oppose that.

I turn now to the question of directions to work. One. often hears the charge made that Aboriginal people are lazy. I see no evidence of this in the Federal division of Brisbane. I think that the cross-section of the Aboriginal community is much the same as other people in Australia. People might disagree with me but I think it is true. In Queensland people who have grown up in the protective situation which existed until fairly recent years- actually until the late Mr Jack Pizzey was the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs and later Premier of Queensland. As he was a friend of mine I express my sadness that he died so soon after becoming the Premier, because I think he would have made a great contribution. People on Aboriginal reserves lived on handouts. They worked in return for their free accommodation and their handout of food once a week and meat twice a week. They worked for 32 hours for no monetary return at all and then, if my memory serves me correctly, if they worked more than 32 hours for the other 8 hours of a 40-hour week they were paid 2s 6d an hour or and extra $2. That meant that an Aborigine who worked at Cherbourg could go into Murgon and in half a day could get more money in his pocket by doing a gardening job than if he worked for a whole week at Cherbourg. That is the system under which many of these people grew up.

There are still regulations under the Queensland Acts which require Aborigines or islanders to perform work under the direction of the administration of the reserves. We say that these people should be paid award wages. We have set this example in the Northern Territory. We do not pretend that all the problems in the Northern Territory have been overcome. In many places there is a problem, particularly in central Australia, in actually providing work. That is not so much a problem in Queensland. In places like Woorabinda, which is a cattle station, and on many other reserves in Queensland there is work in forestry and there is work on the reserves. It is a much more simple situation than that existing in the Northern Territory. The Government believes that Aborigines or Islanders who live on a reserve should enjoy the same award wages, the same conditions of labour, the same terms and conditions of employment as any other Australian. What member of the House could disagree with that? In some places the task is to provide employment under those terms and, under its special work programs, this Government has sought to meet that need. One needs only to look at the amounts of asistance given to the States and local authorities under the legislation which the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant), representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), introduced into this House recently to realise how much money has gone into that program for creating positive employment opportunities.

We have before us a very sensible piece of legislation based on conventions which this country has supported in the United Nations, based on principles which are applied in the broader Australian community. I can only regret the fact that the Queensland Government has been so conservative and inflexible in some of these areas that it has not met the needs ahead of the demand. That demand having been recognised by the previous Government under 2 Prime Ministers over a number of years and by this Government, and a period of more than 5 years having elapsed, no one can suggest that this Bill is an intrusion into State responsibilities. It is a fact of life that on both sides of this House we have tried to negotiate this position with the Queensland Government. In the absence of cooperation, this legislation becomes absolutely necessary if our integrity is to be preserved before the world, if our commitments to the Aboriginal and Island people of this country is to be maintained. I support this Bill with great enthusiam and I trust that honourable members on both sides of the House will support it enthusiastically, not only here but also elsewhere. This Bill is vital to Australia’s standing in the world and to our own integrity as a nation.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I shall be very brief. I support the BUI as it has come down from the Senate. This action is something which, as I think the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) said a moment ago, was started under another government. I think that the Queensland Government has been slow to respond, but on the other hand it is only fair to say that it has made some response. I would have hoped that what has been done would have been done earlier. I know that our Aboriginal community is not necessarily helped by going too fast, but neither is it helped by going too slowly, and in this case I believe that the moves by the Queensland Government, although in the right direction, have been too slow and that this BUI is a good and necessary BUI. I therefore support it in the form in which it has come down from the Senate.

I would not be able to support the amendment which the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) is proposing to move and which he has circulated because I believe that his amendment is not in accordance with the wishes of Queensland Aboriginals. I know that we are capable here of making laws for everybody in

Australia, but when we make laws for Aborignals the first persons who should be consulted are the Aboriginals themselves. In a matter like this, I believe that the proper law would be one which commends itself to the bulk of the Aboriginal community which would be affected by it. I know that there has been no formal counting of heads in this matter, but I do have some experience and I am fairly clear in my mind that the amendment which the Minister proposes to move would not be in accordance with the wishes of the Aboriginal community in Queensland which would be affected by it. In other words, although I support the Bill in the form in which it has come down from the Senate, I do not find myself able to support the amendment to that Bill which the Minister has circulated. My reason for that is the very simple one that in these matters one must try not to be too paternalistic; one must try to consider the real wishes of those Aboriginal people who are affected by the provisions of the BUI. I have visited a number of the Queensland reserves and I have talked to a large number of the Queensland Aboriginals. In my view- I admit that I have not made a formal count- the overwhelming number of the Aboriginals who would be affected by this BUI would be opposed to the proposals which the minister is bringing forward in the nature of amendments. On the other hand, I believe that most Queensland Aboriginals who would be affected would be in favour of the BUI as it has come down from the Senate. I have very much pleasure in supporting it in those terms.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-In the matter of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) BUI 1975, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of many of the people to whom the Bill refers who are resident in the electorate of Wide Bay. I also count among my friends some of the councillors at the Cherbourg Aboriginal Reserve who have demonstrated to me quite clearly their competence to manage their own affairs. They have also convinced me of their fitness to be regarded as Queenslanders of the first degree, and we so regard them. Both men and women councillors of the Cherbourg Reserve have enabled me to become far better informed on their problems and they have earned my respect in so doing.

This BUI is another of those advanced by contemporary society which at first blush immediately attracts the attention and sympathy of the ordinary man in the street. It evidences a torment of conscience, perhaps, of contemporary society for the way in which it has been derelict in its duties and responsibilities over the years to some of the unfortunate minorities. But our torment of guilt should not prompt us to act indiscreetly in a futile effort to remedy the problem. We have earlier this day addressed ourselves to the Racial Discrimination Bill which flowed from a resolution of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination from the United Nations. The chief feature of that Bill, as honourable members will recall, and its pertinence to the matter now being discussed is that by the introduction of penalties we will be able to achieve what understanding and reason have not been able to achieve previously, notwithstanding that the resolution, as evidenced in the Schedule attached to the Racial Discrimination Bill, insists that we are to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. ‘Promote and encourage’- a time consuming and tedious process but one which nevertheless acknowledges that people cannot be bludgeoned into assuming an attitude towards their fellows that they do not feel instinctively. That is where this Bill and others tend to depart from rhyme and reason. It would be logical to look to those who have some influence and standing in the affairs of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to declare their attitude in the matter.

Honourable members have heard from the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) earlier today the outcome of an exchange of telegrams between the councillors of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Reserve and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). I refrain from making any particular comment on that because those people who heard the remarks of the Minister would be as singularly unimpressed as I am. The whole process of relieving the problems of these people, must of necessity, be an evolutionary one. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) indicated that we can hasten too quickly, just as we can progress too slowly. The progress must be based on a very real appreciation that citizenship and all it involves is based very firmly on the matter of privileges and responsibilities. There seems to be as much neglect in educating people to their responsibilities as there is enthusiasm for advancing their rights to privileges, real or imaginary.

The particular Bill to which the Minister seeks amendment is one which is intended to elevate, regardless of their overall fitness, those people who are disadvantaged under the Queensland Bill to a position of full citizenship entitlement.

Of course, this cannot be argued against in principle, except that if in the process we convince ourselves that they will be done a mischief, we should take pause. Would it be difficult to convince ourselves that it would do them a mischief? Would it be pertinent to recall the words of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who, in assessing the progress made by the Aboriginal programs, declared them to be a ‘disaster’? Would it be pertinent to recall the words of the Prime Minister of recent times when he lamented that there is little evidence of progress made from the shockingthat is not his word; I describe it in my own terms- outlay of public funds which tends to have undermined the position of the Aboriginal rather than strengthen it? Would we not be well advised then to consider whether we are not embarking on another exercise which will do these people a further mischief? I suggest very seriously that we would be.

The Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are Queenslanders. They are Queenslanders of whom, as a people, we are proud. As a people, of course, they have their social misfits as we white people do. We should not emphasise too much the position of those from a particular group who, because of their very distinctive qualities demonstrate their lack of social responsibility when they are perpetrating a mischief. There is a tendency to be painfully aware of their problem when they demonstrate their lack of fitness for full social responsibility. This distracts our attention from those admirable people among the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who stand tall and proud within our society, achieving their status by merit and ability and not only refusing to ask for charitable treatment or treatment that smacks of a degree of condescension but also arguing that it should not be given. It is also an extraordinary feature that our consideration of this matter should seriously have been affected by the alleged treatment in these institutional type reserves and establishments. We find that the people who have been subjected to this type of existence for a longer period which must necessarily make them the older group demonstrate a greater social awareness and sense of citizenship than many of the young people who have not been affected to the fullest extent by the rather hamstrung conditions in the Queensland Act.

There is an argument to advance here that the more Aborigines are given too soon the less tendency they have to assume their civic responsibilities. It is argued that the people on these reserves should be paid at full award wages. This in itself has an immediate appeal but is there not a parallel here with the unions who insist on wages and job conditions that virtually price them out of a job? What is the good of the best job conditions on earth if you do not have a job? What is the good of full award wages to an Aboriginal who is required to leave his reserve because he could not maintain the viability of the reserve on such a scale of payment and who finds outside in the competitive world that there is no job offering to him unless he can demonstrate his ability to do it?

Again, we swing back to features of the Racial Discrimination Bill which would necessitate that if one of these Aborigines from a reserve or, to a lesser extent, one of these Torres Strait Islanders who ethnically seem to demonstrate an all-round greater ability in their original state should apply for a position in this outside world and find that because of lack of opportunity he is not up to the job and preference is given to a non-Aboriginal, immediately, under the terms of the Racial Discrimination Bill, an employer who decides to exercise that preference is liable because of all the reasons advanced for discrimination against the appointment. The racial element will be considered as the determining factor. Again we do the Aboriginal a mischief. To us they are very much Queenslanders. I speak as a Queenslander. We deplore the proposition that the reserves should become virtually a seventh State in this nation of ours. This is retrogressive. Immediately there must be a backlash which is evidenced on many occasions where the remainder of the Australian population reels under the impact of perhaps farsighted, but certainly precipitate and premature Government plans, to elevate these people beyond their capacity to maintain the pace.

It is very important that we should maintain a balance and that we should provide the opportunity that permits these people to demonstrate their fitness to take their full part in society. They should rise on merit. It is important that we should direct ourselves to maintaining the necessity that the Aboriginal, along with all other people in this country, must demonstrate his fitness. Nobody is entitled to an absolute handout. Nobody is entitled to a run on the rails or to be carried across the finishing line. Life is naturally competitive and we must argue that everybody should get a fair go but that they must demonstrate in the end that they have energy, ability and those other qualities that entitle them to take their place in society. At present we tend to intrude and say that this will be done, that that will be done and that we will change attitudes.

The Irish problem stands today as one that mocks man’s best endeavours in this respect. Notwithstanding the attentions and the efforts of governments with the most determined intent, the scene remains tragically a monument to man’s frailty in assuming his responsibilities in these particular fields where he must accept the right of his fellow to exploit his talents, assuming that he has had a fair opportunity to demonstrate those talents.

It is said that an Aboriginal man’s home is his castle on a reserve and it should be treated as such. How naive it is that we should assume that his home is any more a castle than the home of anybody else in this country. In this modern society there are extreme circumstances, including wire tapping, under which a man’s home is far from being his castle. Certainly we should aspire to keep it as his castle. But do not let us delude ourselves that any special group or person should have privileges over and above what are regarded as the norm for our society at large. Certainly, as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) says, these people should be judged by their peers. He says that we should allow their peers to qualify for the assumption of authority. They have demonstrated beyond doubt that they can do so.

The councillors of these reserves- I refer again particularly to the Cherbourg Reserve- by their very protests against the introduction of these measures quite clearly indicate their willingness to continue with the measures they have already adopted to work things out as they see best for their people. These councillors are the peers of the people on the reserve. They sit there in judgment on their fellows. They sit in the reserve, work in the reserve, and demonstrate qualities that can only be admired. On the other hand, many of the younger people who have come under the sway of the policies of the Governmentwell motivated, I will concede- are more likely to be found in the streets of Murgon in a state of disarray and sadly under the influence of alcohol. They stand as a monument to the wisdom of those in power who decided that the Aboriginal, without education and without assistance to assume the degree of responsibility necessary, could handle liquor. The sad facts demonstrate quite clearly that he cannot do so.

We have a great aversion to the suggestion of people working in a well knit group within a community for their own common purpose. Yet, the world is full of such instances. There are kibbutzes. There are communes. There are many such groups throughout the world. This is nothing particularly unique or original. It is not necessarily something that is without favourable features. All too often we view these problems against the background of our ordinary social fabric. This is quite wrong. We have to decide whether we want to maintain the culture of the Aboriginal, whether we want to grant land rights to him, whether we want to relegate him to the distant places of this continent or whether we want to absorb or merge- describe it as we please- him into the main Australian community, realising that that represents about 99 per cent of our community.

We cannot have it both ways. If we are to turn around and discriminate between one group and another even with the best of intentions, I say that for every step forward we will take 2 steps backwards. As a Queenslander who is conscious of his responsibilities in this matter and is proud to number among his friends many Aborigines and some Torres Strait Islanders, I convince myself in all sincerity that their best interests are not being well served by the introduction of the measures that the Government now contemplates. I urge the House to oppose the amendments foreshadowed by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant).

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I do not intend to take a great deal of time in discussing this Bill; nor do I intend, if I can help it, to repeat the various arguments that have been put forward in the course of debate in the House. Although I concede that this is a Bill that primarily concerns Queensland members of this Parliament, I think it is proper that someone from another State should rise to talk at this time. I will refer later in my remarks to the foreshadowed amendments which were suddenly foisted, if I may use that word, on us at a somewhat late stage and which will rather alter the original theme, as I understand it, or the original thrust, to use that loaded term, of some clauses in the original Bill.

Let me commence by going over some of the problems that I have seen emerge over the years. Fifteen years ago I was a member of the South Australian Parliament. In those days we brought an excellent person from interstate to be the chief executive of the South Australian department responsible for administering Aboriginal affairs. He brought with him the concept- I ask honourable members to bear in mind that this was 15 years ago- that the South Australian Government was ruining the initiative and the individuality of the Aboriginal race by making it too easy for Aborigines to claim, for example, free tucker. I am thinking now of the outlying reserves and missions, as they were in those days. He said that this state of affairs was destroying the dignity and the individuality of the Aboriginal race in those areas. There is no question at all that in that day and age the moves that were initiated were proper. The Minister who exercised the responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in the Playford Government of the time was Glen Pearson. I felt at that time that very real progress was being made to help the Aboriginal people- I am thinking of those in the outback areas of South Australia- to find their own footing, for better or for worse, in the society in which they lived. Great advances were made in the field of child mortality and in bringing the Aborigines to missions, as they were in those days, and also to government reserves to try to give them some pride in their own endeavours and their own success.

As a forerunner to taking over a large and good station property in the north of the State, Aborigines in those days were trained, properly I think and within a limited scope, to play their part in the shearing teams. The younger people were instructed in the use of shearing machines and the hand set and how to keep that equipment maintained, that is, how to keep it oiled and how to keep it functionable. Limited success was achieved in some areas but, by and large, this was a good move. Times changed. Rightly or wrongly- I concede that it could have been a good measure- minimum wage levels were set for Aborigines. Immediately the problem was to get Aborigines employed in those areas. By and large, the good that was done in those early days was undone. The Aborigines could not be employed as stockmen. Evidently, at that time at the level which their training had reached, according to the station people they were not worth employing as stockmen. So, from that time an element of discrimination was introduced.

Let us accept that there is discrimination and that much of the discrimination directed against the Aboriginal race is most unfortunate. I do not blame the present Government for what is happening. In fact, I encourage the Government to do whatever it can to undo this ill that runs through some sections of the Australian society. Nevertheless, that is what occurred at that time. Aborigines suddenly discovered that where formerly they could obtain employment they now could not. The reason was that, despite the best of will in the actions of governments which led to the setting of minimum wage levels, Aborigines, according to the people who had to employ them, had been priced out of the market. Those employers reasoned at that time that perhaps one teenage person who could maintain a motor bike in running order was better value than 3

Aboriginal stockmen doing their job on horseback. I am not blaming anybody for this state of affairs; that is the way the situation developed.

Time has gone on. The problem now is that inflation has done nothing to help to overcome this difficulty. This is not the time for me to debate whose fault the degree of inflation is; that is for another day. The facts of life are that inflation has added tremendously to the costs that must be met by people living in outback areas. I am not thinking now of the major towns in coastal areas. In the outback this problem has been one of considerable concern. The great misfortune suffered by Aborigines has been magnified greatly by the level of inflation which has made discrimination a lot more real in some areas. I do not doubt that a majority of Aborigines desire to join in the Australian society and wish to attempt to do a good day’s work so that they may become part of and not separate from the whole. But in many areas of Australia today the stage has been reached where many Aborigines are being discriminated against because they cannot obtain employment. I have already discussed one of the reasons why Aborigines are. not able to obtain employment.

Let us look more closely at one problem which would concern my friend from Mallee (Mr Fisher) and others from fruit growing areas more than it would the Queenslanders who have participated or are interested in this debate. Nothing drives the overworked white blocker in fruit growing areas to anything from alcohol to extreme bad humour more than going into his local town, having worked himself to the bone from 5 o’clock in the morning until dusk each day trying to get a harvest off, and finding lying around on the lawn in front of the local pub those who are unemployed. It is fair to say that many of those unemployed are of a slightly duskier colour than white.

Here again are the elements of discrimination. They are real to those people who feel that they want to discriminate. I have tried to describe fairly, I think, the economic conditions that have brought this situation about. I think the Government has cause to consider its own attitude to the situation when Aboriginal people, as well as whites find, that it is easier to live as a group in any old shack and not work. I am not discriminating, and I hope the Minister will note that.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr limes

– I think the honourable member is moving away from the import of the Bill. He has talked about South Australia. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill is the issue before the House. I think I have given the honourable member a lot of latitude, and it would not be a bad idea if he were to stick more strictly to the issues involved in the Bill.

Mr GILES:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I was trying to tie in some of the evolution by using illustrations in my own area rather than Queensland. I could apply them to the Northern Territory just as well in terms of the problems of discrimination, particularly with regard to the Aboriginal people. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that you will inform me that I am out of order if I transgress again, but I will try more strenuously as I develop the theme I want to.

Mr Bryant:

– It is the same continent anyhow.

Mr GILES:

-That is a flash from the Minister. I appreciate his statement of the fact that all Australian States are in the same continent. Of course not all of us would necessarily agree. Let us look at some of the statistics involved in terms of the principle of unemployment, which is basic to discrimination as it occurs in some areas today, whether it be Murray Bridge or Bundaberg, Alice Springs or Darwin. We have seen in the February figures that 31 1,000 are actually unemployed in this country. The Morgan Gallup Poll states that this is not a true figure and that it is nearer 220,000. The only way that this discrepancy- this 90,000 difference- has been explained as far as I am aware, is that there could be duplicated applications. With all the capacity of the outback Aborigines to go walkabout, I do not think that one could accuse them of applying for unemployment benefits at more than one area. The fact of the matter is that this discrepancy alone is costing the Australian taxpayer $3,600,000 a year just in this area, not including the rest of the problem.

There is a second element in relation to discrimination and it is a new one. It applies because perfectly ordinary people feel that their tax funds may not be used in the best fashion. All I can do is beseech the Government in any way possible to cut across the problem of unemployment in the Aboriginal sector. It is patently and obviously a fundamental reason for the feelings of discrimination that arise in the hearts of some people in certain areas. I shall return more specifically to the Bill before you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, decide that I may or may not be out of order. The thing which really brought me to my feet tonight- I do not doubt that a lot more of the Opposition members did not see this corning- was the amendment that has been distributed recently in the Minister’s name. The amendment concerns new clauses to be moved by the Minister for the Capital Territory, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This Parliament, I am sure because of its new found feeling of sweet reason, even abided and did not protest too hard about clause 4 of the Bill which says that this Act binds Queensland and Australia. Contrary to the Minister’s interjection a little while ago, I found this rather incongruous as Queensland is in fact pan of Australia. I thought the Minister agreed. Yet in the Bill he makes the opposite comment. As I say, with comparative good humour and a fair amount of understanding, I think the Opposition noted clause 4 of the Bill and was perturbed about it. But this is nothing compared to the feelings of worry that I have when I now read the new clause 5B to be moved by the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. First of all, the amendment deals with clause 5 A which is to be inserted after clause 5 which deals with the management of property under the Act. Clause 5A deals with residences on reserves. I have no comment to make on that. Clause 5B which is to be inserted states:

An Aboriginal or Islander shall not be ejected from a Reserve or be penalised in any other way, under any law of Queensland relating to a reserve by reason only that he has conducted himself in a way that is not to the satisfaction of an authority or person established or appointed by, under or for the purposes of a law of Queensland, if his conduct was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

I must say that I read the clause more than once to try to find out how this incredible collection of words in one sentence applied. I think it would have been helped by a comma or two and not necessarily in the places where commas have been introduced.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I draw to the attention of the speaker who is addressing the Chair and of future speakers that passing reference to the amendment which is not before the Chair at present is in order. To debate the question at this time seems to me to waver a little further from the issue which is now before the Chair and that is the second reading of the Bill.

Mr GILES:

– I follow your point, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I shall try to return to the topic. The problem with this amendment is that it magnifies what is a proper second reading topic. It magnifies and extends considerably the implications of clause 4 of the Bill. It says that this Act binds Queensland and Australia. We are now posed with a completely new situation in relation to that, because under clause 5 there were certain exemptions given in the original Bill to Queensland law. Because the Minister is looking worried, I shall tell him that the relevant clause is clause 5 ( 1 ) of the Bill. This alters the entire situation. As an Opposition the problem that we now have, believing in federation where obviously the Government does not, is that we think that some powers, apart from the powers handed over to the Commonwealth at a referendum some years ago, should be handed over to the State governments. We feel that the State governments have a proper right to exercise controls at some levels according to their own laws. I return again to the point. One can understand with mixed feelings clause 4 of the Bill which we are considering. My reason for mentioning the amendment before the House was patently that it magnifies and extends the problem that the Opposition would have with that clause. Perhaps I have gone far enough in a general fashion.

I complete my remarks by saying that I hope this Government will do everything it possibly can to remove discrimination. In particular, I would like it to try to get at one of the main root causes of discrimination which unfortunately in some areas of Australia today is getting greater and not less. That root cause is patently unemployment. There is no earthly use being kind and pricing Aborigines out of the market. We have to start sensibly training the younger generation, hoping that they will have more consistent reason to want to work. We have to do all we can to develop the remarkable situation, for instance, which I found in Murray Bridge in my electorate a little while ago, where the Government allows free dental treatment for Aborigines at repatriation rates. A dentist in that area told me only five or six weeks ago that he has had 2 cases where Aborigines have said to him: ‘We do not want free treatment; we are part of the Australian society, we have a job and we will pay our own way, even if it is only to a dentist’. We have to develop that pride and that individuality in the Aboriginal race. I doubt whether I would have had the pride to take the same steps as to the 2 Aborigines in this case who said: ‘No, we do not want something free. We are members of the Australian community and we will pay our way’. I commend them very much for adopting that attitude. I hope that it is an attitude that will be adopted by other members of the Aboriginal race. I hope that the Aborigines will take more pride in their race and that they will be encouraged by governments to hold up their heads and do their job of work to the benefit of the nation.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory (9.21 · Wills · ALP

– in reply- Some of the remarks of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) were in tune with the spirit of the legislation and some of them were not. However, I think that I should commence my reply to the debate by commenting on the speech of the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). On the whole I think that it could be said that it was not a bad speech, but it was just 2 centuries late. If it had been made in 1775, just a year before the Declaration of Independence and other things that flowed from that, including the rights of man and so on, it might well have been in tune. We hold the truth that all men are created equal to be self evident, but not so the honourable member for Wide Bay. He believes they have to work their passage, that they have to show by their capacity, by their aptitude and by their skill in competing in a society delivered and directed by people such as he and by governments of political complexions such as his which draw up all the rules so that they always get returned to office, even when they get only about a third of the vote, that they should be accorded equality.

I want to deal with a couple of the continuing furphies with which the honourable member shredded his speech. Firstly, he mentioned that there has been a shocking outlay of public funds. I hear that said quite often in this place. It is .a repetition of remarks that have flowed down over the last couple of years.

Mr Millar:

– To no purpose.

Mr BRYANT:

– We were not talking about the honourable member’s salary. Anyone who examines the record of expenditure of the present Government in this area and who takes into account the fact that it has been made in remote places across the continent and in places difficult to administer will on the whole have difficulty in finding things that ought not to have been done or things that ought not to have attracted that kind of expenditure. I have said that in this House before and I will say it again. It has been a pretty consistent theme of the Conservatives of this country to try to denigrate everything that has been spent on people other than themselves.

The honourable member got round to the good old theme of alcohol. I will not be surprised if before very long he moves that, for instance, the bar in this place be closed down. I will vote for that. Of course, I am not suggesting that that is a very abstemious institution, but in fact the whole of Australian society is riddled with the threat of alcoholism. Is that not true? Why, then, pick on the Aboriginal people? Throughout history it has been shown that the effects of alcohol on anybody who has been deprived, whether he is black or white, is dangerous, particularly if he is undernourished. Who are honourable members opposite to talk about alcoholism? They gave knighthoods to brewers.

The honourable members for Wide Bay talked about the further mischief that we have done. What further mischief? Generally speaking the Government has embarked upon policies of placing more reliance upon the Aboriginal people and adopting more continuing policies across the board. They have not perpetrated mischief. They have probably created more aspirations and raised the level of aspiration of the Aboriginal people. I suppose that that has created what looks like mischief to some. In other words, the Aboriginal people are demanding more. Perhaps they are a bit like Oliver in that they got little enough in the first place. I deplore the Opposition’s continuing attack upon the administration of policies that have been carried out over the last few years. Some of them have flowed on from the past when the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and a former honourable member for Casey were administering Aboriginal affairs. Our complaint about their policies at the time was that they were too meagre and that they did not deal with the root issues, as this Bill does.

Other things were said by the honourable member for Wide Bay. I think that I might as well deal with them briefly tonight. They are part of the continuing theme adopted by the Opposition of attacking all our social policies. He said that giving Aborigines equal pay placed them in a disadvantageous position in that it priced them out of work. That is what was said by honourable members opposite about the granting of equal pay to women. That is what has been said by persons of the same type about every social change that has occurred during the last two or three centuries. The honourable member for Wide Bay said that we must elevate these people. I do not know what he means by ‘elevate ‘ in that context. Does he mean that we should make them like ourselves? That is not what we are after. I want to place on record the fact that the policies that have been carried out over the last Vh years- the genesis of some of them took place in the previous three or four years- are those that ought to have been carried out. They involve extraordinary administrative difficulties and they involve extraordinary legislative difficulties. That is what we are talking about tonight. We are talking principally about the legislative obstructionism of the Queensland Government.

There are one or two other matters that honourable members opposite raised about which I wish to comment. For instance, the honourable member for Angas said that he thought that it was a bit rough- they were not quite the words he used- to bring in certain amendments at this stage. The amendments are a repeat of provisions that were a part of the Bill when it was introduced in the other place. I should have thought that it would be logical enough and clear enough, even to honourable members opposite, that the Government would attempt tonight to have them put back into the Bill. The honourable member for Angas mentioned that we will not get far until we have solved the unemployment situation among Aborigines in certain areas. That is true enough. One of the difficulties, of course, has been that some Aboriginal people live in remote places in which it is difficult to create employment opportunites. That is all I wish to say about the amendments. I think that they probably will be best dealt with in the Committee stage of the debate.

The honourable member for Angas raised an interesting question about the terminology of the Bill. The Bill states: ‘This Act binds Queensland and Australia’. I suppose we could have used the terminology ‘the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia’. That is in a way almost a crunch issue in relation to this matter. I should think that it is the first real attempt by any Australian government to make sure that all its citizens get equal rights wherever they are, despite the intervention of any State government, reactionary as some of the State governments may be. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) talked of self determination. According to him the fact that the councils had issued some edict or said that they did not want this Bill enacted was self determination. He has a different view of councils than I have. Mine is based on those that I have looked at many times. However, I give him the benefit of the fact that he has been associated with this issue for a long while, usually in a compassionate but perhaps conservative way.

What are we about? The principle before us tonight is the claim by the Australian Government that it has the right, the duty, to deal directly with the Australian people, no matter whether they are Aboriginal people or nonAboriginal people. We are not going to tolerate the intervention between ourselves and the citizens of this country of any State government or any other authority where the fundamental rights of those citizens are concerned. It is the right and the duty of the Australian Government to deal directly with its citizens. That does not mean that other people may not deal with them directly, but it is one of the continuing mysteries to me how the State governments particularly the four of them that are in the hands of the honourable members opposite, continually act as though they have some proprietary right over the citizens who live on their pieces of real estate. That is utter nonsense. Governments do not have rights; they have duties. We have a duty to take the equality that the average Australian citizen believes in to the people of Australia whether they live on Aboriginal reserves, in Queensland or in any other part of this country. That is the issue involved. This is key legislation. Other issues are important, including the handling of the railways, transport, urban development and the rest of them, but when it gets down to the fundamental principle of the rights of citizens that is where the thing begins and that is what this legislation is about. I believe that the amendments we have brought forward are part and parcel of that.

I remind honourable members opposite tonight that the referendum in 1968 was carried overwhelmingly throughout Australia. It was even carried overwhelmingly in Queensland. There were only one or two polling booths in Australia which did not vote overwhelmingly in favour of the Australian Government- the Commonwealth Government if you like- taking over. The term ‘Commonwealth’ is a good one. It is the common wealth of the citizens of Australia with which we are concerned. The nation said to the Australian Government: ‘Get on with the job’. That is what the Australian Labor Party set out to do when it came to government. We have done our best by diplomacy and all other forms that one might use in politics to persuade the Government of Queensland that the legislation on its books has been put there too many years too late.

So we are here tonight to remove the discriminatory provisions that remain in the Queensland legislation, and to make provisions with respect to the people of the Aboriginal race of Australia and the race to which the Torres Strait Islanders belong for the purpose of preventing discrimination in certain respects against those peoples under the laws of Queensland. What are those areas of discrimination? First of all, there is the question of property. For long enough, for too long, the Aboriginal people have been victimised by a system which in the first place was set up to look after their interests, that is, to manage their property for them. So throughout Queensland are Aboriginal people who must be entitled to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars . in wages which they have never received. The money has been put in trust somewhere. The Aborigines have never got it back and it can never be found. The same applies to the rest of their property. Is there any honourable member who thinks that governments ought to be able to intervene between a person and his property rights just by saying: ‘We need to deal with you that way’?

Then there is the right of residence and movement. This is perhaps the one to which my friends opposite have given most attention, even my friend the honourable member for Mackellar, who said, I think in giving his support to the legislation before the House, that he did not really approve the amendments that were before honourable members directly. What do we mean by this right of residence and movement? Honourable members opposite say: ‘True enough, the council on a reserve ought to be able to say that a person may not come on the reserve or may not come on to this piece of property’. What in fact does that mean? Honourable members opposite say: ‘That is fair enough. It is their land’. But is it their land in that sort of sense? Is there any one of us who would give to any council in Australia the right to prevent anybody else visiting our property? In the end it comes down to the point that the people on the Aboriginal councils are able to discriminate against families. I saw this discrimination in the Torres Strait myself. Men who had married away from their islands were not allowed to return with thenwives. We cannot allow that to continue. There has to be some other way. Therefore we are considering a fundamental question of the freedom of movement of people and the right of reunion of families. If there is to be control inside these areas, it has to be found in some other way.

Then there is the question of legal proceedings. My friend the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) dealt with them. I presume that every honourable member who spoke in the debate has visited the Aboriginal reserves in Queensland. Perhaps they have not taken the opportunity to look into the records of the courts on those reserves. If they did they would find the incredible penalties that have been imposed upon people whispering against their neighbours and so on. Then there is the direction to work. I presume honourable members opposite support this. They have not said that they do not. Then there is the question of working conditions.

Tonight we are placing before honourable members the opportunity to remove legislation that has remained on the books for too long. There is no place in the Australian statutes for the kind of legislation which we are here tonight to supersede. All the questions that arise across the board- the right of Aborigines to manage their own affairs, freedom of movement and the right to privacy- are being dealt with. We are facing and dealing with the rights of people who before the great panoply of government are helpless, and who before the pressures of the competitive society to which my colleague the honourable member for Wide Bay referred are helpless in many respects. So it is necessary to supersede the Queensland legislation, and that is why we are here tonight. The continued existence of this legislation is an affront to the selfrespect of the Australian nation as one of the democratic countries of the world.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions)

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I ask the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) what he is going to do about what I thought was the very important point raised by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross). He raised a question about the definition of ‘Islander’, and he reminded us that in the Torres Strait islands there are a number of people who are not of the Aboriginal race and not of the Torres Strait Islanders race but people who had come from other Pacific islands ethnically quite different. The definition of ‘Islander’ states: ‘Islander’ means a person who is a member of the race to which Torres Strait Islanders belong;

It seems to me that this definition would automatically exclude from the operation of the Bill people who are living, and who perhaps for some generations have been living, on Torres Strait islands but who are not of the Torres Strait Islanders race. I think it is merely a matter of drafting. I have no doubt that the Minister has some kind of amendment in mind to cure the position which the honourable member for Brisbane brought up. Only 1000 people may be concerned, but the definition should not be let go as it is. Perhaps the Minister has an amendment, or would like me to try to draw one?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -If the honourable member has not moved an amendment it is not before the Committee.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– If the Minister is not going to suggest an amendment perhaps I had better suggest one. I suggest that ‘Islander’ means a person who is a member of the race to which Torres Strait Islanders belong or is a Pacific Islander settled for at least one generation in the Torres Strait islands.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! It is necessary for the honourable member to put that in written form.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The Minister may have something better. I thought the Minister was going to move an amendment. I will consult with him and we can come back to this matter at the end of the Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) for raising this matter. It is a vexed question and a difficult question to define. We have had discussions about it. I will place the proposition before the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). If it means bringing down another amendment at some stage, that is what we will do. At the moment the principal concern is the rights of access to government benefits that flow from being resident in the Torres Strait islands. Unless we get round at some stage to asking for ancestry certificates the people to whom the honourable member has referred will be all right under the legislation. For the benefit of the Committee, let me say that it is a matter of concern to many of the island people of this country that they have been excluded. The matter is being considered. I would be grateful for the honourable member’s assistance because I know that during his administration of legislation relating to these people he made the general definition as broad and as liberal as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Act binds Queensland and Australia).

Mr GILES:
Angas

-The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) would have heard a few moments ago my view in relation to the problem whether Queensland is in Australia. I was glad to hear him suggest by interjection that it is. I remind honourable members that this clause states:

This Act binds Queensland and Australia.

My first question to the Minister is: Under what authority does the Bill make that statement? I imagine that he will refer me back to the referendum which was passed clearly and with great support by the Australian people. But my informationnot being a Queenslander but being an Australian- is that this matter will be subject to much more debate in forums other than this one. So, that is not really my problem with the Government in relation to this clause. Time and other forums will tell whether clause 4 is correct.

Mr Deputy Chairman, my problem here, which I hope you will understand, involves both clause 4 and clause 5. Therefore my next remarks will impinge on clause 5 also. My problem is this: My understanding is that the Queensland Government or other people have been to the leaders on various reserves in that State and have asked the leaders whether they wish to seek selfdetermination under the guise of control of the areas of land over which they currently exercise control. Using the Minister’s words, which I throw back at him, they have decided that they want self-determination at this level, which in this case is at reserve level. It seems to me that some of the Minister’s words are a little hollow when on the one hand he says that he wants Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to seek self-determination, to seek initiative, to seek the running of their own affairs and, on the other hand, on a combination of clauses 4 and 5, he seeks to do precisely the opposite. This is the reason why we members of the Opposition, particularly in relation to clause 5, do not see an awful lot of sense in what the Minister is trying to tell us.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-I wish to make some comments on the matters raised by my colleague and friend the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). I was interested in his comments on clause 4, which states:

This Act binds Queensland and Australia.

This is a form of words because it is necessary to bind the Government of Queensland and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. This does not suggest that Queenslanders are not Australians. Indeed, there are 2 forms of Australians. I speak as a Queenslander. There are Queenslanders and there are other Australians, the people who wish they were Queenslanders.

Notwithstanding some matters of controversy in Queensland at the present time, I do not know of any Queenslander who says he is not an Australian. The question raised by the honourable member for Angas was whether the wishes of Aboriginal and Island people living in communities were being taken into account and whether, in point of fact, they had selfdetermination. I have been following this issue for about 20 years. When meetings of the representatives of the Aboriginal and Island Councils, as they are now called, are held in Queensland to discuss matters of common interest it is said to them: ‘By virtue of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Act you live in these reserves. You are able to enjoy the places where you grew up. You have all these facilities available to you. If this legislation is destroyed you might have to leave these reserves. You will no longer have these services available to you ‘.

The point has never been put to these people that there are alternative forms of legislation which would give them land rights, which would give them title to their own reserves and which would enable them to determine their own destiny. It has been extremely difficult to put that point of view to people. It is not my purpose to criticise Mr Stewart whose name has been mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and by other honourable members here tonight and who has been referred to implicitly by the honourable member for Angas as representing Aboriginal people. I have never met Mr Stewart. I have followed what he has said at considerable length over a long time. He completely misunderstands what this Government is up to. The people who make these decisions are under the impression that without the existing Queensland legislation they have no title to their land. It is not this Government’s purpose to bring that about at all.

This Government very shortly will introduce legislation to give land rights to Aborigines in the Northern Territory. We hope that the Queensland Government and other State governments will introduce similar legislation to give their people the same right of selfdetermination. There is no disrespect for the legitimately expressed views of Aboriginal and Island people in Queensland. We only wish we had better communications with them. I pay a tribute to the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) who has gone to the Torres Strait and to other places. I know that he has a better understanding of their views. Having recently attended a meeting of the National Aboriginal Consultative Council in Queensland, I know that Aboriginal and Island people from Queensland have a better understanding of the views expressed here. I think we have to get away from playing politics about these things and get back to the much greater degree of common ground which exists but which many of us are not prepared to admit exists and certainly the

Queensland Government is not prepared to admit exists. I completely repudiate the suggestion that this Government rejects the properly expressed views of Aborigines and Islanders. We have taken them into account with the utmost sympathy.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Order! I remind the honourable member that the clause is:

This Act binds Queensland and Australia.

Mr CROSS:

– I am sorry for departing to some extent in replying to the honourable member for Angas. I think I have made my point. There is no suggestion that Queensland is not part of Australia. Speaking as a person who was born in Fortescue Street, Spring Hill, in the heart of the Federal Division of Brisbane and in the heart of the capital city of Queensland, I say that all Queenslanders are proud to be part of Australia. We take into account that many other Australians wish they were Queenslanders.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Proposed new clauses 5a and 5B.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– I wish to move the amendment circulated in my name.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti) -Is it the wish of the Minister to take these proposed new clauses together?

Mr BRYANT:

-No. I suggest that we take them separately in case honourable members opposite want to oppose one or the other.

Mr Hunt:

– Take them together.

Mr BRYANT:

– I ask for leave of the Committee to take them together.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr BRYANT:

– I move:

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-In the light of the fact that the Opposition is supporting the Bill and accepting the spirit of the intention that is outlined in proposed new clauses 5A and 5B, I pose the question: Why does the Government always use a sledgehammer to try to crack a nut? Some aspects of the legislation are highly desirable. Yet the Government, in its heavy handed fashion, ignores its own philosophy and its own policy of self-determination for the Aboriginal people. Let me quote from Hansard a speech by the only Aboriginal ever to sit in this Parliament. He is Senator Bonner, a Liberal Party senator. He opposed the intention which is included in this amendment. He said:

In my speech last week I threw down a challenge to both the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Queensland Government to give the Aboriginal people who are members of the communities on reserves in Queensland the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted these clauses included in the Bill. The Minister did not accept that challenge. Despite what he has said today, I still maintain that the Aboriginal people of Queensland, mainly those who live in Aboriginal communities and who are affected by the Queensland Act, should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want these clauses retained in this Bill.

I believe that the Aboriginal councillors should have the right to say who should enter their communities, who should live in the communities and so forth.

He went on to say:

It is true that there are occasions on which the councillors will make mistakes. But surely to goodness this is part of the growing up process of councillors. The council has been established for only a short number of years and the councillors will make mistakes. But I believe it is their right to have the power to decide who should be allowed to visit or live on the settlement. Surely they will learn by their mistakes. There will be occasions on which they will be guided by other people, perhaps even people from the administration.

At another stage he said: . It is no good the honourable senator saying otherwise. The councils were elected by the people … I stand to be counted. I want to see clauses 6 and 7 -

They are embodied in these amendments - deleted from this Bill to allow the responsibility of the communities to lie in the hands of the duly elected Aboriginal councils.

Certainly a lot of people would not understand how important it is to give that degree of responsibility to the Aboriginal people at this time when the Australian community itself and certainly this Government have in a sense given the lead to try to engender a spirit of selfdetermination.

The Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council and the chairman of most Aboriginal councils in Queensland oppose what the Government is trying to insert into this Bill, as contained in clause 5. It relates to their determination with respect to rights of entry and with respect to who shall reside on the reserves in Queensland. The Aboriginal people wish to retain their own powers. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) tries to brush to one side the Opposition’s plaintive appeals by saying that Opposition members are conservative and reactionary. Surely it is not conservative and reactionary to plead for the Aboriginal people, at a time when a great change is taking place in this country, to leave the decision-making powers in the hands of the Aboriginal people. Perhaps it is the more radical posture to take. It is at least responsive and it is in accordance with the policy of selfdetermination. The provision which the government is trying to introduce is paternalistic and, of course, it is conservative. I never thought that I would be sitting on this side of the table facing the Minister for the Capital Territory, adopting a more radical posture than the Minister adopts. The great arch conservative now sits smiling at me. No wonder he has a grin on his face. I thought that I at least was one of the conservatives of this Parliament.

Mr Bryant:

– That is the first time you have been right for a long while.

Mr HUNT:

-Perhaps I have seen the light Perhaps the burden of the Minister’s responsibilities has dimmed his vision and placed him in a reactionary position. Why does the Government always use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? There are good aspects of this legislation which the Opposition supports. I certainly give the Government credit for aspects of the legislation but I plead with the Government to re-think the matter. Surely there are people on the Government benches who can see the wisdom, in accordance with their own policy and philosophy, in leaving the power to decide who shall enter the reserves in Queensland to the elected Aboriginal councils. To fail to do so makes a mockery of and makes hypocritical the professed policy of the Government. The Opposition opposes the inclusion of these amendments in the Bill.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I want to speak briefly on this clause and on the matters raised by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I was fortunate enough to be present in another place last year when this matter was being discussed. I heard the discussion by both sides of that chamber. When looking at the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Gwydir the first point to be considered is that we are dealing with an Act of the Queensland Parliament which is in force, so anything that is done concerning the rights of Aborigines to enter on to reserves is done under the authority of that Act. I believe that any sort of control like that is wrong in principle. I have been led to believe that in any case the local people control absolutely the entry of Aborigines and Islanders on to the reserves which are controlled under the Queensland law. In my opinion and in the opinion of the Government, no group of people has the right to say to any other people of the same race: ‘You shall not enter upon this reserve’.

Remember that we are not talking about people who are breaking laws which apply to all people of Queensland or all people of Australia. We are talking about a discriminatory law which applies only to Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines living in Queensland who enter or live upon those reserves. It should be clearly understood by honourable members that the clauses which were removed by the Senate and which are the subject of the amendment now before us are there to protect the rights of all Aborigines and all Islanders to enter upon and live peaceably on those places. We could reach the situation where, because of some discrimination on a personal basis, an Aboriginal or Islander would not be allowed to rejoin his family or his friends in a reserve. I think that that is a right which this House ought to protect.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I simply say that I support the view put forward by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) on this matter. Surely we are trying to do what the Aborigines concerned want, and there is very little doubt as to what these Aborigines who will be affected by this legislation want. However, there is one other point that I would make. The Aborigines who want this legislation have a real reason for wanting it. I have been to nearly every one of these reserves and I know the kind of thing that happens there. I know what happens on other Aboriginal reserves. The Aboriginal people who are living there decently and quietly fear very much the incursion of rowdyism and drunkenness from other Aborigines. It is no use our trying to gloss over this fact. That is what they say themselves and what they themselves want. There are 2 points: Firstly, there is no doubt that this is what they want; and secondly, there is no doubt that they have a real and a good reason for wanting it.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I would like to make some comment on the clauses which deal with access to Aboriginal reserves. There are problems in this area. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has looked at the situation in Arnhem Land. There is no doubt that the land-owning clansthey are not land-owning clans at this point of time but are clans that claim land and whose right to own land I trust will be recognised by legislation which will be introduced into this Parliament in the near future- take the view that they should have the right to approve or deny access of other Aboriginal people to the land they claim. They take the view that all of us take of the piece of land that we own in our particular suburb and on which we build our home and raise our family.

In Queensland, at Cape York and other places, there are some Aborigines who are of substantial tribal background and who would make the same claims to tribal land. One thinks of the people at Aurukun, Weipa and other reserves in the Cape York area where a claim to tribal land is a very real claim and where people still practise ceremonies in relation to which it is the policy of this Parliament that they should be facilitated in practising them in the future. There are other situations on Queensland reserves. For example, let me take a place like Palm Island. Very few of the people who live on Palm Island would be the descendents of people who were born there. Most of the people who live on Palm Island were brought from vast areas of north Queensland and from other parts of Queensland. So there is a different sort of community there. I believe that the Aboriginal people who live there should have some substantial say in the extent to which people have access to their reserves or otherwise. But the Queensland legislation does not in itself provide for that situation. It provides that the Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs or the managers of the reserves can make a decision of that kind and can countermand that decision. We face a situation in Queensland where the right of access or otherwise to the reserves in that State is exercised more by the administration than it is exercised by the Aboriginal people themselves.

I must be honest and say that I have not received this kind of complaint over the last couple of years. But prior to the last couple of years I frequently had . Aboriginal people in my office just before the Christmas period who wanted to go back to Cherbourg to visit their relatives but who were denied a permit to go back there. I know that when the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) and other members of the House of Representatives Committee on Aboriginal Affairs went to Woorabinda the same complaint was raised with us. This gets back to a basic question of philosophy. The philosophy of the Queensland Government over a long period of time has been that the Aboriginal reserves are a temporary phenomenon and that the lot of the Aboriginal people is to be assimilated into the outside Australian community. I well remember the late Mr Pizzey, the former Premier of Queensland and a former member of the Legislative Assembly for Isis, saying when he first became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the function of the Department was to work itself out of a job. The most serious indictment that I make of the Queensland Department is that it has created insufficient opportunities for Aborigines who receives a secondary education to have a meaningful career on the Aboriginal reserves in Queensland and play a proper role in the management of those reserves. . That is the background against which these amendments are made. If assimilation is to be a fact of life and if the Aborigines are to have a free choice as to whether they assimilate into the broader Australian community or stay in their own communities, it must be a 2-way traffic. The way in which the Queensland Government has seen the position it is a one-way ticket, and the one-way ticket is out. That is the reason why these amendments have been introduced. I make the point again that I think that Aborigines in these communities should have a substantial say in who comes in or goes out of their communities. I do not disagree with what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has said. I myself have had some cases of the kind he mentioned. But for the most part it is not a question that the Aboriginal communities make these decisions. It is also a question of what the administration, the managers of these reserves and the Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs determine. They have determined an attitude that discourages people from going back to the reserves at Christmas time and other times that are important to people- for example, birthdays and the like. These amendments are put forward as perhaps not the perfect answer to the problem but certainly to recognise the fact that the nonAboriginal administration should not be able to to take away from the Aboriginal people who have been born on these reserves, who have lived there and whose families have lived there, the right of entry or otherwise.

I think the only satisfactory solution to this problem lies with the Queensland Government. It should vest the land rights of these reserves in a meaningful way in the Aboriginal people who live there. When this happens- it is the course upon which this Government has set in the Northern Territory- some of these problems will no doubt pass away. In the interim we have this amendment with which I do not entirely agree but which I will support because it is designed to overcome the situation in which the actual access to reserves or other areas is not in the hands of the Aboriginal or Island people who live on those reserves.

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) has dealt with what I might call the administration position. However, I want to place on record the fact that I think selfdetermination does not include rights over other people in this area. Certainly, wide areas of discretion should be allowed to the local administration. In this case it will be the Aboriginal people, when our policies receive their final judgment and pass into law. But the fact is that there are opportunities for infringement of ordinary; fundamental human rights implied in the present situation and in the points that have been put by some of the members opposite who have spoken in the debate. I do not think that we ought to tolerate it. As I said before, self determination for communities does not include an absolute right over freedom of movement and the reunion of families that is implied in the present situation.

Question put:

That the new clauses proposed to be inserted (Mr Bryant’s amendments) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. S. Luchetti)

AYES: 60

NOES: 54

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Bryant)- by leave- proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I ask whether the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) is willing, under the provisions of standing order 236, to have the Bill recommitted. I do not want to press it, but I should like the Bill recommitted to cure the small defect in clause 3 in relation to the definition of ‘Islander’. I am not going to press it. Does he not think it would be reasonable to recommit the Bill?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– in reply- All I can do is give the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) an undertaking that I will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). I sympathise with the point he makes; but, after all, it is not my Bill and for a long while we have been seeking a definition to cover this matter. I think that to do it now probably would confuse the issue further. I give the honourable member an undertaking that I will raise the matter with the Minister and see whether the matter can be clarified as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Bryant)- by leaveread a third time.

page 1440

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 February on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

-The first purpose of this Bill is to bring within the ambit of the Australian War Memorial Act Australians who served in the armed forces of other Commonwealth or Allied countries, Australian merchant seamen and certain civilians such as official war correspondents and photographers and Australian Red Cross representatives who served with Australian forces. The second purpose of the Bill is to enable the Australian War Memorial Board to invest its funds to give a better return than they do now. I say at the outset that the Opposition supports the Bill. I will deal first with the second provision, that is, the one relating to the investment of funds. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Australian War Memorial is a major publisher in its own right and that the finance it raises from its publications has enabled the Board of the War Memorial to be self-supporting so far as acquiring exhibits for the Memorial is concerned. It seems reasonable and sensible therefore that these funds should be invested to the best advantage consistent with security.

Turning to the major provision of the Billthat is, the one which broadens the scope of the Australian War Memorial Act in relation to those people who can receive official recognition in the Memorial itself- it probably came as a surprise to many people to find that Australians serving with the forces of other countries could not receive recognition in the Australian War Memorial. I think there is general approval in the community of those people receiving such recognition. The same could be said of merchant seamen. As a former member of the Royal Australian Navy, I am very conscious of the fact that merchant seamen faced many of the same dangers and discomforts as the Navy did. I consider it very appropriate also that people such as representatives of the Red Cross should receive recognition. Many members of the Services will recall with respect and appreciation the great contribution that such people made to the morale and welfare of the Services, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Then there are the war correspondents and photographers. Who will forget the magnificent written and photographic records of all aspects of war made by such people as Chester Wilmot in his books ‘The Struggle for Europe’ and ‘Tobruk’, Alan Moorehead in ‘Gallipoli’ and Damien Parer in his photography, to name just three. These men and others like them are historians of world standard, responsible for some of the greatest writings and pictorial records of the wars in which Australians have been engaged, and they too are worthy of recognition in the Australian War Memorial. All these reasons support the extension of the Australian War Memorial Act to cover the area referred to. As I mentioned earlier, the Opposition supports the Bill.

The Australian War Memorial is one of the great focal points of interest in Canberra for Australians of all ages, and that is as it should be. It is not necessary to glorify war in order that people may acknowledge with gratitude the sacrifices which have been made in war and which have enabled Australia to remain a free and democratic country. If the day ever comes when these sacrifices are forgotten, the sort of Australia that we have known will be in great danger. We on this side of the House agree that the Australian War Memorial has a major role to play in ensuring that that situation never arises. In our opinion, this legislation will assist the War Memorial to fulfil its role. For those reasons the Opposition has pleasure in supporting the extension of the Memorial’s functions as set out in the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 1441

ADJOURNMENT

Meat Industry -War Memorial in Crete Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

-! wish to raise a matter this evening during the adjournment debate that has already been raised on a number of occasions by members of my Party. I refer to the situation of the primary producer at the moment, particularly the beef producer. My raising the matter in this House at this particular stage follows the situation where I have been endeavouring to ask a question of the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) over a period in the vicinity of 5 or 6 weeks. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances- I do not blame you, Mr Speaker, in any way- it has been impossible for me to ask that question. But the Minister for Northern Development, in reply to a question asked by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) said on one particular occasion that he felt that the members of the Australian Country Party should encourage people to make representations to the Government, to put forward their ideas and to try to do something positive in regard to this very serious situation.

I say quite frankly that the Minister for Northern Development did not appear to be greatly worried about the situation because he talked about the $20m that had been made available by the Government at an interest rate in the vicinity of 1 VA per cent. Of course, if people can pay an interest rate of 1 1 Vi per cent then, quite frankly they would not need to go to this particular fund for borrowings because they could borrow the money through the normal banking channels. The situation at the moment, of course, is that the beef producer is facing tremendous problems. One of the problems that he is facing is his own financial position. One of the suggestions of the Government is that he will be given a portion of this $20m and will then be given carry-on finance by his own private bank. But what is the good of giving these people carry-on finance which would add a further burden to them in the sense that they have to face an added interest burden bill on that money they are using for carry-on finance? They would have a double interest bill to face at a time when to say that the bottom has dropped out of their market is perhaps being a little moderate or conservative.

Yet this Government quite frankly does not appear to be facing up to the responsibility of a government with respect to an industry which is one of the most important and vital industries in Australia. The reason I have been trying to ask the Minister for Northern Development a question is that when he mentioned members of the Country Party asking country people to put their proposals before Ministers of this Government, I was going to ask him to see whether he could impress upon the Minister for Agriculture,. Senator Wriedt, the need to see a deputation, the request for which I have had before the Minister since before Christmas. I would trunk that that would be at least a reasonable enough time for a Minister to be able to see that deputation.

Mr King:

– Where is the Minister now?

Mr LUCOCK:

– I am afraid I cannot say where he is, nor can I say where the Minister for Agriculture is. But members of the Country Party and of the Liberal Party have stressed the importance of rural production to the economic situation of Australia. I would think, therefore that at this particular stage in our economic history the Government would be giving more attention than they are to this problem which is facing our primary producer.

The deputation for which I am endeavouring to arrange an interview with the Minister for Agriculture is the Gloucester Survival Committee. The word ‘survival’ is a correct word to use in relation to that Committee and the people that they represent because these people in this area are facing literally the problem of survival. They came down here not so very long agotowards the end of the last parliamentary session. They came down with their horses and rode them in front of Parliament House in an endeavour to bring home to this Government the problems that were confronting them. What happened? Neither the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), nor the Minister for Agriculture, nor any other Minister of the Government bothered to go out and say hullo or to see any of these people and talk over their problems with them. Members of my own Party came out. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) came out and made headlines when he road a horse on the lawns outside Parliament House, as did my friend the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). But the people did this not as a stunt but in an endeavour to bring home to the Government and some of the people in the urban and metropolitan areas the problems that were confronting them.

I have forwarded telegrams and letters to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Northern Development and other Ministers in an endeavour to bring home to them the seriousness of the problems that are confronting these people. I have received np reply to many of the letters and telegrams I have sent. I will acknowledge that today I received a letter from the Prime Minister, or from the Prime Minister’s private secretary- I do not criticise that in any way. The letter read as follows:

I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of 28 March 1 975 to the Prime Minister on behalf of certain representatives of beef cattle producers, abattoirs and primary producers, conveying a resolution relating to maintenance payments to members of the beef industry. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible.

I hope that reply is not too long delayed and that a decision favourable to supporting these people is not too long delayed.

The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) interjected last night when my colleagues, the honourable member for Wimmera and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) were making their speeches. Where are the members of the Labor Party and the Government at the present stage who represent primary producers? Why are not they bringing home to the Government the problems that these people are facing? They can talk as much as they like. They can do something whereas we can only stand up here and try by our voices and by words to get this Government off its tail to try to do something for one of the most important industries in Australia. Yet they have members in the Labor Party who represent country areas. What about the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin)? I know he has a greater number of metropolitan people who have been put into his electorate at the present stage but he does represent a very large primary producing area. What is he doing? He went over to Timor. Well and good. That is a very important thing as well. But he should also present to the Government the problems that are facing our primary producers.

I say to every member of the Government: Go and look at the people in my electorate. Look at the people in some of the rural areas and see . what they are endeavouring to do. In any of the electorates that are represented by my colleagues in the Country Party and the Liberal Party in rural areas there are people who are striving to do something- to hold firm. Many of the properties and many of the areas they have been working on literally from one generation to another. The irony of it is that there is a World Food Conference statement ready for tabling in the Senate by Senator the Honourable K. S. Wriedt, Minister for Agriculture. He went over to attend a world conference on food problems, and blabbers an awful lot about what is needed to be done to assist the people in other countries as far as food is concerned. Yet in this country which has a capacity to produce food in unlimited quantities, this Government is doing everything possible to wreck primary industry.

The lack of interest this Government has shown and the policy it has followed in respect of primary industry is a shame and an indictment upon the Government and has been detrimental to the primary industry of this country. Together with other members of the Opposition representing rural areas, as well as other members of the Opposition who realise the importance of rural industry to the economy of this country, 1 say to the Government: Look at this situation seriously and see what you can do to help people who are, in more ways than one, the wealth and the strength of this country.

We have been talking a great deal lately about Vietnam. There is one thing I wish to say on that: I wish the Prime Minister would listen to those things that are said by people who are not following a left wing line with as much attention as he pays to those who are left wingers. He should listen to Mr Parish who came back from Vietnam and said there would be thousands of people killed in South Vietnam because it was an offence against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to try to get away from them- to escape from their control. This man had the experience of knowing the people, knowing the area and knowing the circumstances. Yet the Prime Minister came out with a statement that nothing like this would happen- that there would be no slaughter of people. I only wish he would go over and have a look at the situation. Might I say that he knows as little about the problem of Vietnam as he knows about beef production and primary industry in Australia?

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I want to change the subject before the chamber this evening by making reference to a war memorial to be erected in the near future in Crete. I understand that the Minister at the table, the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), is familiar with this subject, as I brought it to the attention of the Government late last year when it was suggested to me that Major-General Ian Campbell, who fought with the Australian 6th Division in Crete, ought to be encouraged to take a group of Australians to that island where the memorial is to be completed shortly. The Australian 6th Division, it will be recalled, during the period of April and May 1941 fought against the German paratrooper divisions which were sent from Greece and in actions which were fought at the aerodromes at Heraklion and Retimo. Great honour and distinction was won for the Australian Army at that time.

I am hopeful that the Australian Government will be prepared to make an announcement in the near future that in support of recognition of this war memorial overseas it will do something to encourage Australians to be present at its dedication, particularly those who, during their period of service, were involved in the Mediterranean campaign. At this time, in the light of these discussions, I thought it also appropriate to make reference to the splendid work which has been done on the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial by a former member of this Parliament. I refer to a former member for Henry who, if I remember correctly, was member for Henty in 1945, prior to the elections of 1946 and from that election to the end of the Twentyfirst Parliament in 1954. 1 refer of course to Mr H. B. S. Gullett who was the chief Government Whip during the Nineteenth, Twentieth and Twenty-first Parliaments of this Commonwealth. I was privileged to be here during the first 2 of those Parliaments. He will be remembered not only for his military service but also for his distinguished service in this House. There must be at least some members of the Government who will remember him, I am quite sure.

I point out that in the most recent report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial, the terms of appointment of LieutenantGeneral Sir Edmund Herring and Mr H. B. S. Gullett were referred to. The Board warmly acknowledged the distinguished contributions of both Sir Edmund Herring and Mr Gullett to the advancement of the War Memorial. Sir Edmund had served the Board for 30 years and was chairman for 15 years. Mr Gullett was appointed to the Board in 1963. He became chairman of the Executive and Finance Committee in 1 969 and was active on all committees of the Board. Both of these trustees had seen distinguished wartime service, Sir Edmund as an artillery officer, as is well known, during the first World War and as a senior artillery commander and divisional and corps commander during the second World War.

Mr H. B. S. Gullett served as an infantry noncommissioned officer and officer rising ultimately to the rank of major and winning the Military Cross with long front line service during World War II in theatres of war in the Middle East, the Pacific and Europe. I feel that as the House of Representatives has some sort of historic interest in the work of its members and former members that it is most worthy for me to record these few words this evening on behalf of my friend, Mr Gullett, and also to point out that another former member of the House of Representatives, the former member for Port Adelaide, Mr Fred Birrell, who served in the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II has also been appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial.

Whilst I appreciate that I cannot make direct reference to the legislation which was before the House prior to the adjournment being moved, I did feel that I ought to refer to the work of people engaged in civil aviation. I hope that on future occasions recognition will be made of the work of people with the Qantas organisation, Guinea Airways and with Carpenters Airways in particular in areas like Papua New Guinea where tremendous contributions were made in the war period by the civil airlines. Similar contributions were made also in Korea and of course in the Vietnam campaign in recent years. Those contributions are not fully understood because the service has not been sensational or theatrical, so to speak but it has been real and vital. I believe that when from time to time these matters come up for discussion in this Parliament it is proper that recognition should be made of the contributions by these people. If the Special Minister of State is to say something in reply, I hope that he will tell us of the progress of the memorial in Crete to which I referred earlier. As I am sure he would agree, it will be a memorial of a specific campaign in which Australians rendered outstanding fighting service.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) for the remarks that he made in respect of the memorial in Crete. I emphasise the fact that the memorial in Crete is an outstanding tribute to the Australian 6th Division. It is a spontaneous monument erected at Rethimnon by the people who live there. They are relatively poor people, not well endowed with wordly goods and on their own initiative in sincere appreciation of the brilliant effort put up by the Australians in May 1941 they have proceeded to erect this memorial. I was there in January of this year. I was most proud to be an Australian, to have these people gathered around, and to hear what a great reputation we had there through representatives of the Australian 6th Division, how these people indicated their continuing goodwill over all these years and how they wanted to express that feeling in the creation of this memorial which they have shaped with their own hands. It is not what one would call a giant structure but it is a structure of great honor and great dignity in a most appropriate place, on a scene of battle. These people also have obtained the names of those who fell there and propose to have those names included in the memorial. As the honourable member for North Sydney would know, the units which took part in that battle were the 1/3 Field Regiment, the 2/8 Field Regiment, the 2/1 Infantry Battalion, the 2/11 Infantry Battalion, the 2/1 Machine Gun Battalion and the 2/7 Field Ambulance. As the honourable member would know also part of the responsibility of my portfolio is to take an interest in the proper preservation of war graves. There is an Australian section of the war graves cemetery at Suda Bay on Crete which is some 60 kilometres north of Rethimnon. The cemetery is in excellent condition. I am certain that all Australians would be proud to applaud the fact that so much care and attention has been given to that cemetery by those who are responsible for it.

In the course of our visit there, every honour was given to the Australian people. A parade of Greek forces and representatives took place which again reflected the great valour which was displayed in this battle by Australians. If I may be a little critical, there was one omission, in a sense, that at the Suda Bay cemetery the names of the fallen are not displayed. It would have helped if they had been shown so that people seeking to find out the names of those buried there would be able to do so readily. People certainly can find out this information by reference to the Book of Remembrance but these names were not displayed. The memorial being erected at Rethimnon will display the names of those who fell in the battle there.

We might recognise again the tremendous effort that these boys put up. Some 300 were killed in this battle. They were virtually over-run by superior numbers in the finish because units to the north had been forced to capitulate- not Australian units but other units. They had fought previously in Greece and apparently had fought, and fought magnificently, with Cretan units there. They fought all the way down through Greece and had gone down to Crete with very little hardware left in the form of military ammunition. The story of this battle has been told and I think it shows the splendid natural characteristics of the Australians when in battle- of his mateship, his comradeship and his valour. Whilst we do not recognise any merit in war and whilst 300 of these outstanding Australians lost their lives, 5500 Germans lost their lives. These

German soldiers were the cream of the German Army. They were paratroopers, they were fresh troops, and they suffered enormous casualties in this battle. The Cretans will not forget it and have prominently displayed near the scene of the action, the name of every person they were able to identify.

They are very proud to think that now some of the survivors will be coming back there in May. The Australian Government, at the request of representatives of the 6th Division who have sought some financial aid, has agreed to give $13,000 towards a visit whereby Major-General Campbell- he was Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell when in charge of these troops- together with Mr Ian Allen, who is well known to members of this House and who took part in this battle, and representatives of these units will be able to go to Crete and meet these people. I know that they will be given a most cordial welcome. The people will be delighted to see them. It is an interesting area, because not only are the people of the villages concerned, but the whole island is involved in paying some recognition to the Australian contingent of 1941. They find it rather difficult to recall that the Australians had come all that way to fight for their country of Crete. They think it is a tremendous thing, and it is. In Crete, because of this battle, it is a great honour to be an Australian. Whilst we have made some small monetary contribution, the real factor is that these gentlemen will be going back there. It . will be a sad occasion for them in the sense of remembering the comrades who have gone, but a very happy occasion of renewing the acquaintances of many of the Cretans alongside whom they fought and who have gone to a lot of trouble and are very proud to think that the Australians are coming.

It is thought also that we might be able to make some other contribution by way of planting appropriate Australian trees in front of this memorial and give it some other Australian aspect, which could not be done unless it was in accordance with what the Cretans thought was appropriate. I know they would applaud anything we wanted to do. This event is outstanding in the sense that it is very easy now to talk to Cretans as it is to talk to the Greek community, who are suffering a lot of trials and tribulations in other areas, particularly Cyprus. It is a great honour to think that the valour of so many years ago is still permeating the whole of that society. It is very easy to talk to the responsible people in the Greek community. They all want to talk about this splendid effort of the Australians who were so anxious to preserve freedom and democracy, and who were successful in that sense.

I should like to make one other comment because I think there will be some criticism. The Gallipoli veterans also sought some financial assistance to go again to Gallipoli. We were able to oblige on a number of occasions, but on this occasion it was not possible. Assistance was available for the 50th anniversary of Gallipoli, but in exercising judgment in this matter we thought it more appropriate that the Retimo veterans, the Cretans contingent, ought to be given a chance because the Cretans are waiting for them. They are creating a memorial which has never been created before. It commemorates an outstanding achievement of the 6th Division. I do not know that we have recognised them as much as we should have and I think all Australians would be anxious to say: ‘By all means encourage them to go’. It is a tribute to them; it is a way of thanking the Cretans and the Greek Government for their consideration. Again I applaud them for the hospitality extended on our behalf and to any Australian who goes there. In its own way, it is a permanent recognition of splendid men and great valour.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

page 1446

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Terrorist International’ (Question No. 1230)

Mr Snedden:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an organisation or a group of countries which have held a meeting known as the Terrorist International’.
  2. If so, can he say how many meetings have been held by the ‘Terrorist International’, and where, and when, they were held.
  3. What countries or organisations were represented in each case.
  4. What is the contribution and purpose of the organisation.
  5. Does it have accredited representatives; if so, where.
  6. Has the Australian Government had any contact with this organisation or its representatives.
  7. If so, where and when, and what was the reason for the meeting and the outcome in each case.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. to (7) My attention has been drawn to reports that there is an organisation styling itself ‘Terrorist International’. The Australian Government has no knowledge of meetings, composition or activities concerning matters relating to these reports.

Budget Deficit

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns-On 6 March 1975 Mr Wilson asked me a question without notice concerning the budget deficit. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

As shown in the Statement of Financial Transactions 1974-75 issued on5 March, there was an overall deficit of $2, 769.4m on the Australian Government’s financial transactions in the first eight months of 1 974-75 .

The usual concentration of tax payments in the latter part of the year means that the Government’s transactions will be moving into surplus in the last quarter of 1974-75. This in turn means that the deficit for the year as a whole will be less than the figure of $2,769.4m shown for the eight months to February 1975.

On present indications it appears that the deficit for 1974-75 may be of the order of $2,250m but that estimate will be subject to revision as the end of the financial year approaches.

Department of Defence: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 1240)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his reply to question No. 869 (Hansard, 24 September 1974, page 1764) what are the research and development projects in which the 5,700 employees referred to are engaged:

    1. a ) at Salisbury- Woomera,
    2. at Melbourne,
    3. at Canberra,
    4. at Sydney,
    5. at Innisfail, and
    6. overseas.
  2. How many employees are engaged on each such project.
  3. ) Are any employees engaged on projects outside the six areas listed; if so, where, and on what projects.
  4. Is the total annual cost of the conduct of these projects $61m.
  5. If so, what part of this $61m goes to salaries and other payments to the 5,700 employees.
  6. What are the major divisions of expenditure for the remainder of the $6 1 m.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The 5,700 employees referred to are the staffs of the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury with its range facilities at Woomera; the Materials Research Laboratories at Maribyrnong with outposts at Alexandria, New South Wales; Woodville, South Australia; and Innisfail, Queensland; the Aeronautical Research Laboratories at Fishermen’s Bend, Victoria; and the Central Studies Establishment, Lyneham, Australian Capital Territory. These establishments with their headquarters at Canberra comprises the former Research and Development Division of the Department of Manufacturing Industry which was transferred to the control of the Department of Defence as from 1 July 1974. The abovementioned establishments are staffed by scientists, engineers, experimental and technical officers supported by administrative and industrial staffs. They are engaged on many classified and unclassified tasks and it would be impracticable to provide a listing of these or the allocation of staff to each.

The Division has now been incorporated together with the research, development design and trials establishments previously operated by the Australian Defence Services, into the Science and Technology Organisation of the Department of Defence, thus bringing all defence scientific activities under one central control. The total staff of the new organisation as at the end December 1974 was 6258.

  1. The locations mentioned in my reply to question No. 869 covered only the activities of the Research and Development Division. Activities are also carried out by:

Royal Australian Naval Research Laboratories, Sydney, New South Wales.

Royal Australian Naval Trials and Assessing Unit, Sydney, New South Wales.

Engineering Design Establishment, Maribyrnong, Victoria.

Tropical Trials Establishment, Tully, Queensland.

Armed Forces Food Science Establishment, Scottsdalc, Tasmania.

  1. , (5) and (6) The estimated cost in 1974-75 of the program for the former Research and Development Division of the Department of Manufacturing Industry is $67. 5m, i.e. the amount appropriated under Treasury Divisions 325, 326, 327, 328 and 329. The estimated cost of those elements of the Department of Defence and the Australian Defence Service is not at present separately identified in the relevant appropriations; however an indicative estimate for 1974-75 for these elements is $ 12.2m.

On the above basis the total estimated cost of the Defence Research and Development program in 1974-75 is $79.7m. Of this amount it is expected that $55. 8m will be spent on salaries, wages and allowances. The balance will be expended as follows:

It should be noted that estimated revenue from the Defence Science and Technology Program in 1974-75 is $ 12m. The net cost of the program is therefore $67.7m.

Eye Movement Control Communication Aid (Question No. 1698)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a device that has been developed at Queens University, Ontario, called the Eye Movement Control Communication Aid, which provides highly motivated individuals who are severely handicapped with a means of rapid communication with a computer via a remote control.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to other electronic aids that have been developed by the medical engineering unit at Queens University.
  3. If so, will he undertake to examine these aids to see whether they are applicable to the Australian situation.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. A working party has been established in my Department to investigate the provision of medical and surgical aids and appliances generally and to recommend ways in which Government assistance may best be given. The working party will investigate these and other aids in collaboration with health professionals with direct involvement in the particular fields with a view to determining their suitability for use in Australia.

Medical Research (Question No. 1845)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What complaints has he received, from organisations and individuals engaged in medical research, that important research will have to be curtailed because of lack of finance.
  2. What requests has he received for additional research grants.
  3. What is his attitude to the statements from medical research organisations that medical research is facing a crisis because of insufficient funds.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Increased costs in salaries and wages, equipment and research materials have rendered a given amount for medical research made available through the National Health and Medical Research Council less effective as the current triennium (1973-75) has progressed. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of projects which could be supported. Had additional funds been available, the Council would have supported a number of new projects which were considered worthy. This has been a matter of comment by various research workers and by other individuals who have an interest in medical research. While I share their concern. I appreciate that in the present financial situation with mounting unemployment there are other essential national priorities for government spending.
  2. An explanation of the above situation was given to research workers who were unsuccessful or only partly successful with their grant applications submitted to the National Health and Medical Research Council for support in 1975. Following this action six persons submitted requests for additional grants.
  3. The present level of support for medical and other research in Australia has been the subject of several exhaustive enquiries during the past year. Perhaps the most important of these was the examination undertaken by the OECD investigating team. The Government has taken certain action to alleviate some areas where inflation has had a serious effect, such as providing for salary increases for research workers in line with award increases.

In specific instances, it has by a further allocation of $750,000 to the Walter and Eliza Hall and Howard Florey Research Institutes, compensated in part for the recent falling off of voluntary donations to these world renowned centres for medical research. This has assisted them in avoiding retrenchment of staff and in maintaining research projects at present level.

In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council has experienced an acceleration in the quantity, quality and sophistication of submissions for research funds. In these circumstances some projects which would have been funded in earlier years were unsuccessful primarily because of the intensity of competition for the funds available. I do not think however that the description of ‘crisis’ can be sustained.

The Council has recently made a total review of research priorities which is aimed to take account of the most pressing needs for the Australian community, some of which have undoubtedly arisen because of its life style and environment. The Government and the NH & MRC have freely sought the advice of individual research workers, institutes and medical research organisations. Their opinions will be taken into account when a case is presented to the Government for support of medical research in Australia during the 1 976-78 triennium.

In supporting medical research it must be remembered that it is no longer sufficient, because of the growing complexity of biological sciences, to look for spectacular and immediate cures and remedies. The future depends on integration of the skills of the fundamental scientists, biologists, clinicians and epidemiologists. It has become increasingly more important to support research in the long term.

Minister for Services and Property: Staff (Question No. 1854)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are on his personal staff.
  2. What are their names, designations and salaries.
  3. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants.
  4. From which departments have the permanent public servants been seconded.
  5. How many advisers and consultants have been or are employed by him, and what are their names and salaries.
Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) to (5). I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Special Minister of State in reply to Question No. 1862 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, pages 4844-4850).

Navigational Aides (Question No. 1929)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What navigational lights and aids located off the North West coast of Western Australia have been damaged by other than natural causes during the 2 years ended 30 September 1974.
  2. What have been the repair costs of this damage.
  3. Have any cases of damage been attributed to Indonesian fishermen, if so, which.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Routine inspection at Imperieuse Reef Light on 19 May 1 974 revealed damage to the door on the tower.
  2. ) The cost of repair to the door was $20.
  3. 3 ) The identity of the offenders is not known.

Quarantine Checks (Question No. 1938)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What checks are made at Perth Airport of Australians returning from tours of South-East Asia which commenced with Bali and ended at Singapore before flying to Perth.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The procedure recently has been that normal quarantine checks covering human, animal and plant aspects are applied to passengers and their luggage from South-East Asia in common with all passengers entering Australia. In addition, all Australians and other travellers returning from South-East Asia are asked specifically whether they have been to Bali during the past three months. If answered in the affirmative all footwear of that passenger is disinfected whether or not contaminated with soil or animal matter.

As the first stage of a vaccination campaign covering all cattle on Bali was successfully completed on 23 January 1975 and as there have been no clinical cases identified since mid-December, 1974 it has been decided to bring Bali into line with other countries in which foot and mouth disease is present and vaccination is practised. As from Friday, 7 March 1975, only footwear of passengers coming from foot and mouth disease countries which is carrying soil or animal matter will be disinfected. Footwear which is clean on inspection is not now subjected to treatment.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 1940)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1) If the Aboriginal officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are a burden on the white men in that area, were they employed for political expedience; if so, does this bring into question the integrity and professionalism of the interviewing panels.
  2. How many of the Department’s second division officers were in third division positions in the Office of Aboriginal Affairs prior to the change of Government in 1 972 .
  3. How many times have the white officials of the Department prepared plans to increase Aboriginal officer participation, which have been rejected by the Public Service Board.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  3. Never.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. I960)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Has advertising drawing people’s attention to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act been conducted only through newspapers and not through radio and television; if so why?

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Yes. In view of the breadth and complexity of the provisions of the Act, the initial advertising was confined to a written advertisement which could cover a wide range of matters. As the Act is now becoming more widely understood the use of radio and television, to highlight particular aspects of the legislation, may be more appropriate.

Question Upon Notice (Question No. 1994)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1550 which first appeared on the Notice Paper 1 3 Nov. 1 974.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

I draw the right honourable member’s attention to the answer to this question provided in today’s Hansard.

Defence Science Board (Question No. 2023)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1239 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 October 1974.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided to question No. 1239 (Hansard, page 1 129 of 5 March 1975).

Aircraft Industry (Question No. 2025)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1242 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 October 1974.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided to question No. 1242 (Hansard, page 1028 of 4 March 1975).

Public Libraries (Question No. 2036)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1721 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1974.

Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the right honourable member to my reply to Question No. 1721 (Hansard 6 March 1975, page 1233). ‘Terrorist International’ (Question No. 2103)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1230 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 3 October 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1230.

Awards for Gallantry (Question No. 2158)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Australian gallantry awards recommended for some Australian servicemen who served in the Vietnam War have not as yet been made.
  2. If so, are these awards still to be made, and when can the recipients expect to receive them.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) No. All recommendations made to the Minister for Defence for Australian gallantry awards in Vietnam have been.determined and awards promulgated.

Bureau of Roads and Bureau of Transport Economics (Question No. 2172)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Has there been any progress in the Government’s consideration of the possibility of amalgamating the Bureau of Roads and the Bureau of Transport Economics.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

The matter is continuing to be considered but no firm decisions have yet been made.

Meat Sale to the U.S.S.R. (Question No. 2175)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Was a bulk sale of meat to Russia arranged through the Australian Meat Board several months ago.
  2. If so, did the sale break down because the Government would not provide a visa for a Russian veterinarian to inspect the consignment in Australia.
  3. After his visit to the Soviet Union, was this condition agreed to and a visa issued to a Russian veterinarian.
  4. Was this action taken so that he could point to a theoretical trade victory as a result of his visit.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1) No. On 15 November 1974 the Minister for Agriculture announced that he had been advised by the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board that a sale of 10 000 tonnes of beef had been made by Australia to the U.S.S.R. This sale was being negotiated between two private firms. It broke down for purely commercial reasons.
  2. , (3) and (4) No. The first request for the issue of a visa to the Russian veterinarian was received on 19 December. It asked that the visa be issued in Bonn where the person concerned was on a current visit. Authority to issue a visa was cabled on 20 December. The visa was issued in Bonn on 13 January 1975.

The sale of meat was discussed with our Russian counterparts by the Special Minister of State and me and the officials accompanying us when we were in Moscow between 14 and 1 6 January. On 10 February the Minister for Overseas Trade announced that the Board had sold 40 000 tonnes of beef to the U.S.S.R. On 4 March the Minister for Agriculture announced a government loan of up to $3 million to the Board to assist it in making export sales.

Sydney Living Costs (Question No. 2221)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the United Nations publish statistics indicating that Sydney is a more expensive place to live than New York.
  2. If so, what were the statistics as they concerned those two cities.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The United Nations regularly publishes retail price indexes relating to living expenditures of United Nations’ officials in a number of cities throughout the world. The statistics are presented in issues of the United Nations publication ‘Monthly Bulletin of Statistics’ for February and August of each year. A note attached to the statistics states:

It should be emphasised that since the statistics relate to United Nations’ officials whose consumption patterns differ from those of the indigenous population, the indexes cannot be considered as reflecting the general relationship of the price levels in the cities shown. ‘

Hence the statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusion that Sydney is a more expensive place to live than New York.

The latest statistics, for June 1974, showed that the retail price index relating to living expenditures of United Nations’ officials was 5 per cent higher in Sydney than in New York.

Naval Design (Question No. 1523)

Dr Forbes:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1) Do his remarks to the National Congress of the RSL on 28 October 1974 mean that the Naval design capability which has been developed in Australia over many years will now not be exercisedin the development and design ships for the Royal Australian Navy, and that this valuable expertise will no longer be actively developed.
  2. Is it the intention of the Government that the naval shipbuilding capability should decline into little more than a ship repair activity so that the ability to build warships in Australia as distinct from less complex ships such as survey vessels, etc, will be lost or, at best diminished.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. All proposals for the construction of naval vessels are assessed to determine the feasibility of local design and construction. The tasks currently being undertaken in naval dockyards are of sufficient range and complexity to exercise and develop appropriate design skills necessary for future warship construction.

Medical Practitioners: Migration to Australia (Question No. 1781)

Mr Wilson:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

With reference to his answer to question No. 525 (Hansard, 15 October 1974, page 2371), what answers did the 33 1 medical practitioners give, to the questions contained in the passenger cards completed by them prior to entry into Australia as to their (a) country of birth, (b) country of citizenship and (c) country of embarkation.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows:

My answer to Question No. 525 pointed out that a comprehensive analysis of 1973 medical practitioners by source country or birthplace is not available. It is therefore, not possible to provide the full information required in your further Question 1781.

I am informed that the information is limited to a selected group of countries for which cross tabulations of settler arrivals by birthplace and occupations are produced on a regular basis. This information is as follows:

The countries of birth of 1 18 of the 331 medical practitioners who arrived in Australia in 1 973 is:

  1. With regard to country of citizenship, the question of the 1 973 passenger cards reads:

Nationality- if British- specify country of citizenship’. Thus persons other than British would state their nationality only; British persons would state country of citizenship, which is not necessarily the same as nationality.

Information on nationality /citizenship is available on 135 of the 331 medical practitioners who arrived in 1973. It is as follows:

  1. No statistics are available on country of embarkation of persons arriving in 1973 who described themselves as medical practitioners.

Government Cars (Question No. 1834)

Mr Keogh:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which Opposition Senators or Members are supplied with Government cars under conditions other than.those applicable to backbench Members.
  2. What was the total cost of cars used during (a) 1973 and ( b ) 1 974 in each case.
Mr Daly:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:-

  1. Senator R. G. Withers- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Senator the Honourable I. J. Greenwood, Q.C.- Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Senator the Honourable T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C- Leader of the Country Party in the Senate; The Right Honourable B. M. Snedden, Q.C., M.P.-Leader of the Opposition; The Honourable P. R. Lynch, M.P- Deputy Leader of the Opposition; The Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, M.P- Leader of the Country Party; The Right Honourable J. G. Gorton,

C.H., M.P.- former Prime Minister; The Right Honourable W. McMahon, C.H., M.P- former Prime Minister.

  1. The respective total of cars used by the above mentioned Senators and Members are as follows:

Funds for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 1756)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the total allocation of funds for Aboriginal Affairs in 1973-74.
  2. How much of this allocation remained unspent at the end of 1973-74.
  3. What was the reason for this amount remaining unspent.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) The funds provided for Aboriginal Affairs in 1973-74, the expenditure against these funds and the amount unexpended were reported to Parliament by the Treasurer in his Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1 974 on pages 1 7 and 53. The details were:

The major under expenditure was $2,535,000 in respect of Division 1 10-3-0 1 (Transfer to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account). This was a saving required by Treasury as a condition of provision of funds under other items brought about by the change from payment of under-award training allowance to the payment of award wages in the Northern Territory. The other expenditures of any significance were occasioned by transport difficulties in the Northern Territory during the last wet season.

Additionally, the balance of the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account rose by $1 1.8m. While not truly representing unspent appropriation it does reflect moneys which had not at that time passed out of the control of the Department.

Treasury: Grants for Programs (Question No. 1550)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What programs does his Department or statutory authorities under his control administer which enable individual groups or people in the community to apply for grants from the Australian Government for a specific purpose.
  2. ) What is the name of each program.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each program.
  4. What are the conditions surrounding eligibility for a grant under each program.
  5. When did each program commence.
  6. What is the legal authority for the existence of each program.
  7. How is the community informed of the existence of each program, and its entitlement to apply for a grant.
  8. How many applications for grants under each program have been received in each of the last 3 years or for the period of operation of the program if it has been in operation less than 3 years.
  9. Who decides which applications for grants should be accepted.
  10. What percentage of applications for grants under each program have been successful in each of the last 3 years or in each of the years in which the program has been operating if it has been in operation for less than 3 years.
  11. What proportion of total funds allocated under each program in each of the last 3 years, or in each year the program has been operating where it has been in operation for less than 3 years, have been allocated to individuals as against goups
  12. Are any attempts made to assess the extent to which the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the program, and the means by which applications can be submitted; if so, what attempts.
  13. What checks are made once applications are received for each program to determine if the attempts to widen access to the funds have been successful.
  14. Is he confident that the widest cross-section of the community is aware of the existence of the programs, and is aware of the application process.
  15. What procedures exist to assess the use to which the grants are being put, and to attempt some accountability for the money granted.
  16. What is the total amount that has been paid out under each program in each of the last 3 years or in each year of the operation of the program if it has been operating for less than 3 years.
  17. What is the total amount of money paid out for all such programs administered by his Department or authorities under his control.
  18. What attempts are made to ensure that the same individual organisations or persons do not receive several grants under different programs which he or other Ministers are responsible for and which, when added together, may be unwarranted.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Treasury is not directly concerned with the administration of any program of grants to individual groups for any specific purpose. Advice was sought from the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation.

The Reserve Bank has supplied the following information about the Economic and Financial Research Fund and the Rural Credits Development Fund programs.

There are no programs in the context of the question that are administered by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation or its three Banks, the Commonwealth Trading Bank, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the Commonwealth Development Bank. However, the Commonwealth Development Bank does support research activities on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. Details of such research grants made during the three year period to June 1974 were provided to the right honourable member on 30 October 1974 (see Hansard pages 3 100-3 10 1 ) in reply to his question No. 75.

1 ) and (2) (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund

Grants

Fellowships in Economic Policy

  1. Rural Credits Development Fund

Grants

Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)

  1. (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund

Grants- to assist research on economic and financial topics relevant to Australia

Fellowships in economic policy- to encourage research on problems in economic policy

  1. Rural Credits Development Fund

Grant- for the promotion of primary production.

Grants are made for research, extension or development projects having a potential benefit to primary industry, preferably within a few years.

Senior Research Fellowship (Agriculture)- for the promotion of primary production- Fellowships offered to provide incentive for experienced research workers to apply their talents to the resolution of practical problems in agriculture.

  1. There are no eligibility rules in respect of age or nationality for either Fund. Applications for grants must be forwarded through the administrative head of organisations. Fellowships are tenable at Australian universities and research institutes.

  2. (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund- 1952

    1. Rural Credits Development Fund- 1 925

  3. (a) Economic and Financial Research Fundestablished by the Board of the Bank pursuant to Part II of the Reserve Bank Act 1959-73.

    1. Rural Credits Development Fund- established by Section 3 of the Commonwealth Bank (Rural Credits) Act 1925 and continuing under Section 62 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959-1973.
  4. 7 ) ( a ) Economic and Financial Research Fund

Grants universities invited to submit applications personal contact with the university staff distribution of information papers to universities advertisement in ‘Economic Record ‘

Fellowships in Economic Policy advertisements in Australian and overseas press personal contact with university staff

Grants universities, CSIRO, State departments of agriculture, other research organisations and groups engaged in extension activities (e.g. Rural Youth movements) invited 10 submit applications information papers distributed to above organisations personal contact with above organisations advertisement in ‘Search’

Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture) distribution of information paper to research organisations advertisements in Australian and overseas press personal contact with research organisations

  1. (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund

Grants

1971- 72-30

1972- 73-33

1973- 74-34

Fellowships in Economic Policy scheme began in 1 974-75, applications totalled 20

  1. b) Rural Credits Development Fund

Grants

1971- 72-154

1972- 73-197

1973- 74-215

Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)

1972-73-26

Fellowships are offered each 2 years. One fellowship awarded in 1974-75.

  1. (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund- Grants and Fellowships in Economic Policy approved by Governor of Reserve Bank of Australia on the advice of the Bank’s Economic and Financial Research Fund Committee.

    1. Rural Credits Development Fund- grants and Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)- approved by Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the advice of the Rural Credits Development Fund Committee of Reference.

  2. 10) (a) Economic and Financial Research Fund

Grants

1971- 72-63%

1972- 73-58%

1973- 74-70%

Fellowships in Economic Policy

  1. Rural Credits Development Fund

Grants

1971- 72-55%

1972- 73-35%

1973- 74-39%

Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)

1971- 72

1972- 73- 12%(3 Fellowships)

1973- 74

  1. 1 1) (i) E & FRF and RCDF grants are made to organisations, not to individuals.

    1. Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)

1972-73-100%

  1. Yes. Personal contact with research, development and extension organisations, assessment of advertising and issuing of press releases on RCDF grants and Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture).
  2. Advisory Committees for both Funds assess applications received, taking into account likely sources of grant requests.
  3. Yes.
  4. Research reports and financial statements are sought annually on £ & FRF and RCDF projects. Personal contact is maintained with project workers.
  5. Economic and Financial Research Fund- grants approved

1971- 72 $ 71,244

1972- 73 $128,245

1973- 74 $ 95,975

Rural Credits Development Fund- grants approved

1971- 72 $731,348.11

1972- 73 $877,069.00

1973- 74 $630,340.17

Senior Research Fellowships (Agriculture)- awarded in 1972-73.

Expenditure to 30 June 1 974 $ 1 3 1 ,343.60 (17)

Economic and Financial Research FundGrants approved to 30 June 1974 $906,943.66 Fellowships to 30 June 1974 Rural Credits Development Fund Grants approved to 30 June 1 974 $ 1 1 , 1 56,50 1 .92 Fellowships- Net expenditure to 30 June 1974 $266,331.30

  1. 18) Applicants for both grant programs are asked to indicate if the project or similar projects have been submitted to other granting bodies, and the results, if any, at the time of application. Contact is maintained with other granting bodies. Fellowships applicants are asked to advise the Bank of other awards and positions being applied for.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Grants (Question No. 94)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the information below in reply to the right honourable member’s question:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 April 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750409_reps_29_hor94/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant